discord_check_tool_permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so "Read-only" is redundant, but the description adds real behavioral context: a per-tool verdict is returned and channel visibility is checked alongside permissions. The fail-early framing explains the intended contract. No rate-limit or error-shape detail, but the output schema covers returns.

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 core behavior, followed by two short clauses on read-only and timing. Efficient overall, with only the redundant "Read-only." sentence not earning its place against the annotations.

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 preflight check with fully documented params and an output schema, the description covers what is checked, on what scope, and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and all three parameters carry descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mirrors the parameters (guild, tool names, target channel) without adding format or semantics beyond them, which is the baseline case.

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: for a guild plus a list of tool names, report per-tool whether the bot holds the needed permissions and whether the channel is visible. That is clearly distinct from channel-wide or bot-wide permission siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Use this before a multi-step operation to fail early with an actionable message instead of partway through" gives a concrete trigger condition. It doesn't state when not to use it or point at alternatives like discord_get_channel_permissions or discord_get_bot_permissions.

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