discord_style_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'nothing is created or renamed.' It adds genuinely new behavioral detail: duplicate names are permitted but become indistinguishable, and truncation or fallback may occur. It does not cover rate limits or plan-size constraints, which is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return payload, then the safety clarification and the alternative. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 nested-object tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, safety, and the handoff to the apply tool, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of explaining theme selection tradeoffs or the practical length limits implied by the sibling discord_architect_explain_limits.

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 theme, items, prefix and overrides are already documented in structured fields; baseline 3 applies. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond noting a shared theme with per-entity names, without explaining how prefix or overrides interact in practice.

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 ('Build a coherent naming plan for a whole server') and enumerates exactly which entity kinds are covered. It is clearly distinguishable from discord_apply_name_theme and discord_style_name, which the description references by name.

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 says 'Read-only: nothing is created or renamed' and routes the agent to discord_apply_name_theme when actual renaming is intended. It also pre-empts a likely misuse by clarifying 'These names are decorated text, not a font.'

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