discord_set_guild_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations don't: the Manage Server permission requirement and the fact that it returns both the previous and new name. It does not discuss what happens to name uniqueness constraints or rate limits, hence not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and the primary disambiguation, then the permission requirement and return value. Every clause earns its place — the parenthetical is the most valuable disambiguation in the definition.

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?

Output schema exists, so explaining return values is optional, and the description still summarizes them; it also flags the required permission. What remains unstated is failure behavior (e.g. name rejection/validation errors) for a mutation on an open-world API, a minor but real gap.

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, name (with its 2–100 length bound) and the audit-log reason are already documented in structured fields. The description adds only a conceptual clarification that 'name' means the guild name, not syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Change the server's name') and immediately disambiguates which 'name' — the guild name in the server list — from the bot's own name and its nickname. It names the sibling discord_set_bot_nickname for the alternative case, so an agent can separate this from the many other name-related tools 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?

Explicitly routes the nickname case to discord_set_bot_nickname and states the 'Requires Manage Server' prerequisite, which is real selection guidance. The positive when-to-use case (renaming a server) is only implied by the verb rather than called out, and no other alternatives (e.g. icon/banner/description settings) are referenced.

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