discord_architect_compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' plus the crucial safety detail that unplanned server items are 'candidates for removal, never removed automatically.' That non-obvious guarantee is real added value beyond the annotations; it stops short of 5 only because it says nothing about scale, pagination, or cost of the diff.

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?

Two tight sentences: the diff semantics and result buckets come first, the safety caveat second, the usage guidance last. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, so return shape needn't be described, and the read-only profile is covered. The remaining gap is that the deeply nested plan format is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but means the description doesn't help an agent construct a valid plan.

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 coverage is 50% and the nested plan object has no top-level description, so the description must carry weight. It does frame 'plan' as a desired-state spec being compared to live state, which helps, but it adds nothing about role keys, theme styling, categories, or system channel slots that the nested schema defines.

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 and resource: diffs a plan against the live server, and enumerates the three result buckets (missing/would-be-created, existing, present-but-unplanned). This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like discord_architect_apply and discord_architect_repair.

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?

Gives concrete usage triggers: answer 'what would change?' and detect drift before repairing a half-finished build, which implicitly routes the agent to repair afterward. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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