edit_guild

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as [WRITE] and reveals the gating behind an environment variable. It also explains the image format expectations for icon_base64/banner_base64 and points to the README for limitations. This goes beyond a bare description, though it does not cover all side effects or permissions.

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 compact—two sentences—and front-loads the critical WRITE designator and gating condition. Every word adds information, with no fluff. The inline formatting of base64 parameters is clear and concise.

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?

The tool has an output schema and 5 parameters, but no annotations. The description covers the core purpose, the write gate, and the image format nuance. It omits details like merge semantics (e.g., whether null leaves a field unchanged) and does not explicitly state return values, though the output schema may cover that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a typical use, with a pointer to the README for deeper limitations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the updatable fields (name/icon/banner/description) and explains the format of icon_base64/banner_base64 in detail. However, it does not describe the remaining parameters (guild_id, name, description) in a way that adds value beyond their names. The key ambiguous parameters are covered, but the others rely on self-explanatory names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update guild-level identity (name/icon/banner/description).' The verb 'Update' and the resource 'guild-level identity' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like edit_channel and edit_role. It leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies when to use this tool (for guild-level settings, not channel/role edits) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The mention of the write gate (DISCORD_MCP_ENABLE_WRITE=1) adds context about availability, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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