discord_delete_reaction_role_menu

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

With destructiveHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful context: exactly what is destroyed (all mappings for one message), what is explicitly preserved (the message), and how to interpret a no-op result (returns 0 rather than a success signal). That last point is important behavioral nuance beyond the annotation.

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 short sentences with zero waste. Scope comes first, then the preservation caveat, then the return-value nuance — all front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple destructive mutation with annotations and an output schema, the key behavioral facts are covered: what is removed, what is not, and how to read a zero result. The only missing piece is parameter-level explanation, which matters more here because schema coverage is 0%.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining the three parameters. It only hints at message_id via 'one message'; it says nothing about channel_id or the optional reason field, so an agent gets no added meaning beyond the parameter names and ID patterns.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('reaction-role mapping') with explicit scope ('attached to one message'). It also distinguishes from the nearest alternative by clarifying 'The message itself is left alone', so an agent can tell this apart from discord_remove_reactions and discord_delete_message without opening either schema.

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 context is clear: this targets reaction-role mappings for a single message, and the note that the message is preserved implicitly steers agents away from delete_message. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state prerequisites/permissions, but the when-to-use condition is unmistakable.

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