discord_architect_create_template

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the required permission level and the downstream limitation that a bot cannot consume the produced template code — neither of which is derivable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint. The return-value sentence is slightly redundant with the existing output schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 permission requirement and the human-only application caveat are front-loaded where an agent will read them first, and no sentence is filler. The final sentence about return values is mild duplication of the output schema, a minor economy loss.

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 3-parameter, low-destructiveness creation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, permission gate, and the most important failure mode (bots can't redeem the code). Only the sibling-alternative guidance is missing, which is what keeps it off a 5.

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 100% and all three parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds a little framing ('from the current server') but does not clarify the name-vs-guild_id relationship or note that guild_id is the source server rather than a target, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a Discord guild template') plus what the artifact captures (channels, roles, permissions) and what it produces (a shareable code). This clearly separates it from siblings like discord_architect_list_templates, discord_architect_delete_template, and discord_export_structure.

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 an explicit precondition ('Requires Manage Server') and a critical usage boundary: the resulting code cannot be applied by a bot, only by a human in the Discord client. It does not, however, point to alternatives such as discord_export_structure or discord_architect_apply for bot-driven replication, so the sibling routing 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.