Manage a thread or post

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

Annotations already declare the operation is non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that locking means only moderators can post — but does not disclose permission requirements for archive/rename, whether multiple mutations can be combined in one call, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the available operations with the one non-obvious side effect (lock) kept adjacent to its trigger. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the full behavioral burden for a 7-parameter mutation tool, and it omits return values, permission requirements, and whether operations are composable in a single call. Adequate to select the tool, but not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 only 43% (only thread_id and the member IDs are documented), so the description has to compensate, and it largely does: each operation maps onto name, archived, locked, slowmode_seconds, add_member_id, and remove_member_id. It stops short of clarifying combination semantics (can rename and lock happen together?) or that only one member can be added/removed per call.

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?

The description names a specific resource (a thread or forum post) and enumerates the concrete mutations it performs: rename, archive/unarchive, lock/unlock, slowmode, add/remove member. That makes it clearly distinct from creation/read siblings such as discord_create_thread or discord_get_post, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation list: this is the tool for modifying an existing thread or forum post. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. 'use discord_create_thread to create a new thread') and no stated prerequisites such as required permissions or that the thread must already exist.

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