discord_admin_request

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

It goes beyond the annotations by revealing that non-GET calls require destructive admin to be enabled locally, full URLs and cross-guild paths are rejected, and returned secrets are redacted. These are non-obvious behavioral details that meaningfully affect invocation and output handling. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 three sentences, each carrying essential information: what the tool does, the permission requirement, and key input/output constraints. It is dense but not verbose, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a generic raw API access tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: scope (guild/channels/webhooks), permission requirements, input restrictions, and output redaction. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool safely.

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 schema already describes path, method, data, and reason with 75% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by specifying that full URLs and cross-guild paths are rejected, which clarifies the expected path format beyond the schema's '/api/v10' omission note. This additional nuance warrants a 4.

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 tool provides 'advanced access to any Discord REST endpoint scoped to the configured guild, its channels, or its webhooks.' This distinguishes it from the sibling-specific admin tools by framing it as a generic raw API access tool with a defined scope. The constraints on full URLs and cross-guild paths further clarify its exact purpose.

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 gives clear context that this is an advanced access tool for endpoints not covered by dedicated siblings, and it includes prerequisites ('Non-GET calls require destructive admin to be enabled locally') and constraints ('Full URLs and cross-guild paths are rejected'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when you need an endpoint not exposed by other tools,' so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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