Connect Discord interaction bus

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds some useful context by mentioning 'bot-token/signature safety notes,' implying security-related behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or what actually gets created beyond a vague list of components.

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 sentence that is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the primary action ('Create a Discord interaction scaffold'). The list of components is compact and not overlong. It earns its place with useful detail, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the scaffold's structure, purpose, or how the parameters control the result. The one-sentence overview leaves major gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool with meaningful arguments, especially regarding adapter configuration and safety notes.

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?

Only 20% of the input schema parameters are described (name and parent_path). The description vaguely references 'command rows,' 'message rows,' and 'approval policy,' which hint at command_count, message_count, and approval_required, but does not explicitly map them to schema parameters or explain their meaning. With eight undocumented parameters and low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 creates a Discord interaction scaffold, enumerating key components like command rows, message rows, approval policy, adapter source, and safety notes. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools. This is a clear purpose statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from alternatives. It simply says 'Create' with no context for selection among the many sibling tools. There is no mention of when this scaffold would be preferred over other integration tools.

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