discord_send_typing

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior (triggers a typing indicator for ~10 seconds) and its purpose (user feedback during processing). However, it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, permissions required, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first defines the action and duration, and the second provides usage guidance. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete for its purpose. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and behavioral traits. However, it lacks parameter details and does not cover potential side effects or error handling, which are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description does not mention the 'channel_id' parameter at all. While the tool has only one parameter, the description fails to add any semantic context beyond what the schema's property name implies, missing an opportunity to clarify what channel_id represents (e.g., a Discord channel ID).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Trigger the "bot is typing…" indicator') and resource ('in a channel'), distinguishing it from siblings like discord_send_message. It explicitly mentions the duration ('for about 10 seconds'), which adds precision beyond a generic typing indicator.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Useful before sending a long-form response so users know the bot is working'), including a specific scenario and alternative context (i.e., use it before discord_send_message for long responses). This clearly differentiates it from other messaging-related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.