discord_export_structure

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states the permission bar ('no special permission beyond being able to read the guild'), that nothing is written to disk server-side ('the output is a plain JSON document the caller can store'), and explicitly flags the message-history limitation. Those are the exact facts an agent needs before promising a user a full backup.

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 substance — what is exported — before the limitation, and most sentences carry real information. A few editorializing asides ('stated plainly', 'this server does not pretend otherwise') are filler that could be dropped without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the remaining burdens: scope of the export, permission requirements, side effects (none to disk), and the message-history limitation. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or set user expectations 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage (snowflake ID with a pattern), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only implies the guild scope through 'the server's structure' and adds no format or sourcing guidance for guild_id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (export) plus a concrete resource (server structure as portable JSON) and an enumeration of exactly what is captured: categories, channels with type/position/topic/slowmode/overwrites, and roles with permissions. It clearly does not export messages, which separates it from the read/search message tools. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like discord_architect_read_structure, discord_list_channels or discord_list_roles, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (take a portable backup of structure + permissions) and an explicit exclusion ('NOT messages' with the reason Discord's API cannot enumerate history in one call), which is a real when-not. It never names a preferred alternative for the backup/restore/compare family (discord_restore_structure, discord_compare_structure, discord_architect_read_structure), so the routing is incomplete rather than absent.

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