discord_admin_webhooks

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

Annotations signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which already warn about mutations. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: 'Returned webhook tokens are always redacted.' This is not present in annotations and helps the agent understand response behavior. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond basic mutations.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding one crucial safety note about token redaction. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, multiple operations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify which parameters apply to which operation, how to structure data for create/update, or what the expected return format is. The tool is clearly a multi-function CRUD endpoint, but the description alone leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 40% (2 of 5 properties have descriptions), and the tool description does not compensate. It does not explain the role of data, channelId, webhookId, or reason in different operations. The phrase 'List, create, update, or delete webhooks' provides high-level intent but no parameter-level meaning. With low schema coverage, the description should have elaborated on parameter usage but does not.

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's function: 'List, create, update, or delete webhooks.' This uses a specific verb list and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like discord_admin_channels or discord_admin_messages. It unambiguously conveys the scope of operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or how to choose among the five operations. It lists operations but does not state prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify that webhookId is required for update/delete or that channelId is needed for list_channel.

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