discord_copy_permissions

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable specifics beyond them: exactly what gets destroyed ('The target's existing overwrites are overwritten'), the required permission, and the return behavior ('Returns a confirmation'). This is useful context the structured annotations cannot convey, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the core operation, the destructive consequence, and the permission/return note. The most decision-critical information is front-loaded, with zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what is copied, what is overwritten, the permission gate, and the return value. Minor gaps remain — e.g., behavior when source and target are in different guilds or are different channel types — but these are edge cases beyond the core call contract.

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 all three parameters including the reason audit-log field and both snowflake IDs. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Replace'), names the resource (target channel's permission overwrites), and specifies the source ('a copy of the source channel's'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like discord_lock_channel_permissions or discord_reset_channel_permissions because the direction, source, and target are all explicit.

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?

The operation semantics make the use case clear — make one channel's permissions match another's — and the Manage Roles prerequisite is stated. However, no alternatives are named or excluded; an agent choosing among overlapping siblings such as discord_clone_channel, discord_set_role_permission, or discord_reset_channel_permissions gets no guidance on when this tool is preferred over those.

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