discord_audit_permissions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint true, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only.' It adds meaningful behavioral context: only channels with overwrites are included, names are resolved, and the return shape is { channels: [...] } with channel, channelId, and overwrites. No annotation contradiction.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose/scope, read-only nature, return shape, and routing to the sibling tool. The key action is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler.

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 read-only audit tool with one schema-documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, return payload, and alternative usage. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 the schema already fully documents guild_id. The description does not need to add parameter details; it simply aligns 'server-wide' with the guild scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Generate a server-wide permission report') and precisely scopes its behavior to channels with overwrites, listing roles/members with allowed/denied permissions. This makes it clearly distinct from the many permission-related sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool for a narrower use case: 'Use discord_get_channel_permissions for a single channel.' It also implies when to choose this tool (server-wide audit) versus per-channel lookup, leaving no ambiguity.

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