discord_remove_guild_icon

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by naming the required permission, spelling out that the prior image is permanently gone, and stating the post-state (Discord's generated default). Only the return value is restated, which the output schema already covers.

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 filler: the action and its effect come first, then the permission gate, then the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter, destructive guild-settings tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing: permission requirement, irreversibility, and resulting state are all present.

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 guild_id (snowflake) and reason (audit log) are already fully documented. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Remove the server's icon') plus the resulting state ('reverting to Discord's generated default'), which distinguishes it from sibling discord_set_guild_icon and discord_remove_guild_banner without any schema inspection.

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 the gating condition ('Requires Manage Server') and the consequence of use ('not reversible: the previous image is gone'), which is clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly routing to the alternative (set_guild_icon to replace rather than remove), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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