discord_edit_dm_embed

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

The description discloses the full-replace behavior ('provided fields are applied and omitted fields are dropped'), which is a critical non-obvious trait. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's replacement semantics add meaningful context beyond annotations. It also states the return is a confirmation, which is useful. Slight gap: no mention of auth/rate limits or what happens if the message isn't found.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the verb+resource, the second adds the critical ownership constraint, and the third crystallizes the most important behavior (full replace). Everything is front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage, the required params are clear, and the nested object shapes (author, fields) are fully documented. The description explains the full-replace semantic that the schema can't express, and the confirmation return. Minor omissions (error cases, not-found behavior) are acceptable for an edit tool with idempotentHint=true.

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%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description's 'full replace, not merge' is high-level and applies to all parameters collectively, but it doesn't add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. This is baseline 3 territory since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the specific verb ('Replace'), the resource ('the embed on a DM message previously sent by this bot'), and distinct scope ('DM message', 'previously sent by this bot'). It also differentiates from generic edit tools by specifying DM-only context and bot-owned messages.

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 description states the critical when-not-to-use constraint: only the bot's own messages can be edited. It clearly implies this tool is for DM messages, distinguishing it from discord_edit_embed (which likely targets server messages). However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool like discord_edit_embed or discord_edit_dm for non-embed edits, so it misses the full explicit alternative mapping.

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