discord_edit_sticker

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

Beyond the annotations (non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses three things structured fields cannot: partial-update semantics, the required Manage Expressions permission, and the hard limitation that artwork is not editable through this tool. It also states the return ('the updated sticker'), which exists in the output schema but reinforces expectations.

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, front-loaded with the action and mutable fields, followed by semantics, permission, limitation, and return. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with a full output schema and annotations, the description covers permission, partial-update behavior, the key limitation and the return value. The only gap is that the null-clears-description nuance is left solely to the schema.

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 every parameter is already documented with types, patterns and length bounds. The description contributes only the partial-update rule ('Only provided fields change'), which explains why only guild_id and sticker_id are required. It does not mention the null-to-clear behavior for description, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 ('Update a custom sticker') plus the exact mutable fields (name, description, tags). It is instantly distinguishable from discord_create_sticker, discord_delete_sticker and discord_edit_emoji without opening any 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?

It gives both when-to-use and an explicit when-not: 'The image itself cannot be changed: Discord has no endpoint for it, so delete and re-upload to replace the artwork.' It also names the prerequisite capability (Manage Expressions) and clarifies patch semantics ('Only provided fields change').

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