discord_set_membership_gate

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the verified silent-failure bug (HTTP 200 but ignored ADD), which direction works, that the returned 'enabled' field reflects true post-call state, and that enabled:false means Discord refused. It also states prerequisites (COMMUNITY feature and Manage Server) — behavior an agent cannot infer from the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the critical limitation and prerequisites. It is dense but every sentence carries actionable information (failure mode, workaround, return interpretation, permissions); only the 'verified against a live server' framing adds slight verbosity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema available, the description needn't restate parameters or returns, yet it usefully adds the one thing the schema can't convey: the silent-ignore failure mode and how to read enabled:false. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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%, so all three parameters (guild_id, enabled, reason) are already documented. The description adds practical meaning around the 'enabled' outcome (enabled:false = refusal), but that is more return-value interpretation than input semantics, so 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+resource and mechanism: turn the membership screening gate on/off by adding/removing the MEMBER_VERIFICATION_GATE_ENABLED feature. This is clearly distinct from editing the screening form, but it never names the sibling tools (e.g. discord_update_membership_screening) that a confused agent might reach for, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides a strong when-not-to-use signal: explicitly warns that enabling via API is silently ignored and must be done manually in the client, and that only disabling works here. It lacks an explicit named alternative tool for the enable case, but the operational guidance about when this tool will and won't succeed is clear.

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