discord_send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully documents the guild_id fallback behavior (DISCORD_DEFAULT_GUILD_ID) and conditional requirement logic, but fails to mention permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling patterns for this mutating operation.

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 optimally structured with the core purpose in the first sentence followed by an Args section. Every line provides essential information without redundancy; the examples ('general' or '123456789') are high-value additions.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers input semantics and validation logic. Minor gap: no mention of return value or success indicators, though the absence of output schema reduces the burden slightly.

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 has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to compensate fully. The Args section excellently documents all three parameters: channel includes format examples (ID or name), content defines the payload, and guild_id explains conditional requirement and environment fallback behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Send') + resource ('plain text message') + target ('Discord channel'). The 'plain text' qualification effectively distinguishes it from sibling tool discord_send_embed, clarifying this is not for rich embeds.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'plain text,' suggesting discord_send_embed for rich content, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide explicit exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for embeds').

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