discord_send_webhook_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond parameters, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., message ID returned). For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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?

Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't help the agent understand parameter requirements, behavioral implications, or how this differs from discord_send. For a webhook messaging tool in a Discord API context, more guidance is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what webhookId/webhookToken are, how to obtain them, what content format is expected, or optional parameters like username/avatarURL/threadId. With 6 parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description, this fails to provide necessary semantic context.

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 clearly states the action ('sends a message') and target ('to a Discord channel using a webhook'), providing specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like discord_send (which likely uses different authentication) by specifying webhook-based delivery, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_send or discord_create_webhook. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pre-configured webhook) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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