discord_architect_plan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the non-redundant parts: no Discord state is touched, the output is the exact ordered steps apply would run plus every detected problem, and the plan is declarative/convergent so re-applying converges instead of duplicating. That convergence behaviour is exactly the kind of semantics annotations cannot express.

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-loaded with the action and the no-side-effects guarantee, then the return value, then usage routing, then the declarative contract. Efficient overall, though 'without touching Discord' and 'Read-only' restate the same fact.

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?

Output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies purpose, routing and idempotency semantics, which is sufficient. Only the omission of the top-level plan branches (theme/system_channels) keeps it from being fully complete.

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 reported schema coverage is 0% at the top level (the single 'plan' parameter itself is undocumented), so the description has to carry meaning. It does characterise the shape well (roles, categories, channels, permission intents) and the role-key reference model, but it omits first-class branches such as theme, uncategorized and system_channels, leaving those to the nested schema descriptions.

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 pair (validate and normalise) on a specific resource (server-structure plan) with an explicit scope qualifier ('without touching Discord'). It also names the sibling it feeds (discord_architect_apply, which executes the returned steps), so an agent can separate the two without inspecting schemas.

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 routing rule: 'the tool to call first for any "build me a server" request', plus the rationale (cheapest way to show the user what would happen). The alternative and its relationship are named rather than implied.

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