discord_create_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: the return value (thread ID) and the follow-up action (use discord_send_message with the thread ID as channel_id). It does not mention rate limits or permission requirements, but the core behavioral guidance is present and useful.

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?

Two short sentences front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return value and next-step guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 83% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the two modes, the return value, and the integration with discord_send_message. It is nearly complete. A minor gap is the absence of permission requirements or rate-limit notes, but given annotations and output schema, this is a strong definition.

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 83%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not elaborate on any parameter beyond noting the two modes, which aligns with the schema's message_id description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra parameter details.

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 (Start) and resource (thread), and explicitly covers the two modes: from an existing message or standalone in a channel. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like discord_send_message or discord_create_channel.

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 clarifies the two creation modes (message-based vs standalone), which is the key usage decision. It also tells the agent how to post into the new thread (discord_send_message with thread ID as channel_id). However, it does not mention when to use this versus discord_list_threads or discord_create_channel explicitly, nor does it state prerequisites like permissions.

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