discord_send_embed

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds genuine value by disclosing auth requirements ('Requires the Send Messages and Embed Links permissions') and the return behavior ('Returns the new message ID'), which matters since no output schema exists. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but those are minor gaps given the annotation coverage.

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 fluff: core function first, then routing guidance, then permissions and return value. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it versus alternatives, required permissions, and the return value (message ID). Minor gaps remain — it does not bound whether the target channel may be a DM (versus discord_send_dm_embed) and does not flag Discord's embed content limits — but the fully-covered schema compensates for most of this.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's component list (title, description, color, fields, author, footer, images, timestamp) mostly echoes parameter names already documented in the schema rather than adding new meaning, and it adds nothing about formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Send a single rich embed', and enumerates its components (title, description, color, fields, author, footer, images, timestamp). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from discord_send_message and discord_send_multiple_embeds, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is explicitly routed: 'Use discord_send_message for plain text, or discord_send_multiple_embeds to send several embeds at once.' It also states the required permissions ('Send Messages and Embed Links'), giving concrete preconditions an agent must verify before invoking the tool.

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