discord_set_application_description

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: the ownership/authorization precondition and a statement of what the returned value is. It stops short of stating failure modes (e.g., what happens on invalid token or non-owned app) or the OAuth2 scope needed.

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: effect and where it appears first, disambiguation second, precondition and return third. Nothing is padding and the disambiguation is front-loaded enough to prevent the costly sibling confusion.

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 setter with an output schema (so return format needn't be explained) and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, confusion risk, precondition, and return value. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the 400-character limit, so the schema does the work. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or content guidance beyond restating that the value becomes the visible description.

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+resource ('Change the owning application's description') and locates the effect precisely (OAuth2 authorization screen, developer portal). It explicitly names the confusing sibling discord_set_guild_description and says this is not it, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a 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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('This is not the server's description (discord_set_guild_description)'), and states the prerequisite that the application must be owned by the token's owner. Both the when and the when-not are present.

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