discord_apply_name_theme

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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses that preview is the default, that renames happen one at a time with per-entity failure isolation and per-entity results, the permission requirements (Manage Channels, plus Manage Roles for roles), that only name text changes because Discord cannot apply a custom font, and that channel IDs/links survive renaming. None of this is recoverable from idempotentHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the critical preview-by-default constraint in caps in the second sentence. Each remaining sentence covers a distinct risk (partial failure, permissions, font misconception, link stability) with no repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still flags per-entity results, which is the piece an agent needs to interpret that output. For a multi-entity mutation gated behind confirm, permission requirements and failure semantics are both covered, leaving nothing essential missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining the confirm gate semantics and the blast radius of what gets renamed. It adds little on theme enum values or keep_plain matching beyond the schema, but the confirm behavior is genuinely clarified.

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?

States a specific verb, resource set, and scope: 'Rename existing channels, categories and roles in a server to a Unicode-styled theme.' That bulk, server-scoped framing distinguishes it from the singular styling siblings (discord_style_name, discord_style_preview) without needing to name them.

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 preview-by-default / 'Re-call with confirm:true to apply' pattern is explicit workflow guidance an agent can act on immediately. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. discord_style_preview for a single name, discord_list_name_styles for palette choice), so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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