discord_set_premium_progress_bar

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's contribution is the Manage Server permission requirement and the note that the resulting value is returned. That permission prerequisite is genuine added value, but nothing is said about failure modes (missing boost tier, permission errors) or audit-log behavior beyond the schema's own note.

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 operation, then the prerequisite, then the return. Every sentence carries distinct information and none of it is padding.

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 an output schema present, the return statement need not be expanded, and annotations plus a fully documented 3-parameter schema cover the rest. The description supplies purpose and authorization; only edge-case behavior (no boost tier, revert semantics) is absent, which is a minor 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`, `enabled`, and `reason` are all documented in the schema itself, including the snowflake pattern and audit-log semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond a restatement of the enabled toggle, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb pair and a specific resource scoped to the server's channel list ("Show or hide the boost progress bar in the server's channel list"), which is unambiguous. No sibling tool in the list touches boost/premium settings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives the practical precondition for invocation ("Requires Manage Server") and the toggle semantics, so an agent knows when it is applicable. It offers no explicit exclusion or alternative-tool routing, but no sibling offers an overlapping capability.

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