discord_set_guild_description

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

Annotations cover the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the COMMUNITY-feature gate, the Manage Server permission requirement, and the fact that null clears rather than errors. It doesn't discuss the audit-log reason parameter's effect, but the schema covers that and the gaps are minor.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the highest-risk constraint flagged explicitly. The limitation is placed before the permission note, matching what an agent most needs to check first. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Between the description (preconditions, permissions, clear semantics) and the schema (types, length cap, audit reason), an agent has everything needed to call this correctly or to route to discord_enable_community.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds value by surfacing the null-clears semantics at the tool level ('Pass null to clear it'), which is the non-obvious behavior an agent most needs to get right. It repeats the schema's 300-char and null hints rather than extending them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 pair and resource — 'Set or clear the server's description' — and parenthetically defines what that field actually is ('the blurb shown on the server's landing page and in discovery'). This is easily distinguished from siblings like discord_set_guild_name or discord_set_application_description, which target different objects.

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?

Explicitly names the precondition (guild must have the COMMUNITY feature), the failure mode (call is rejected), and the remediation path ('call discord_enable_community first, or accept that this field cannot be set'). It also states the required permission (Manage Server). An agent knows exactly when this will fail and what to do instead.

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