discord_architect_repair

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool previews by default, that read-only behavior is conditional on confirm being false, and that only missing steps are applied (reinforcing destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true). This materially changes how an agent would call a tool whose readOnlyHint=false would otherwise suggest unconditional mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences in a deliberate order: what it does, when to use it, the default safety posture, then the override. No repetition of the title or schema details, and the safety-critical default is capitalized and front-loaded in its sentence.

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 explanation is unnecessary; the description covers the only behavioral unknowns an agent needs (preview default, confirm override, missing-steps-only scope). For a 3-parameter, nested-plan tool with strong schema coverage, nothing essential is 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?

The description gives real semantics for `confirm` ('confirm:true applies the missing steps only') and for `plan` (it is diffed against the live server), which the schema alone does not make explicit. `guild_id` is left to its schema description, which is adequate at 67% coverage.

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 chain: compares a plan against the live server, reports missing steps, optionally applies them. It clearly positions itself as the repair path after discord_architect_apply, but never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling discord_architect_compare, which also does a plan-vs-live comparison.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: 'Use this after discord_architect_apply reports failures, or when a build was interrupted.' For a fresh, non-interrupted build the agent can infer to use apply instead, but the overlap with discord_architect_compare is not addressed, leaving one real ambiguity unresolved.

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