create_settings_notifications_discord

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context by revealing that the body fields are not statically defined and must be discovered via GET/schema. It does not explain replacement vs merge semantics or auth requirements, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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 succinct and well-structured: the action is front-loaded, the HTTP endpoint is included, and the single parameter has a clear discovery instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single open-bodied parameter with an existing output schema, the description supplies the route, the operation, and the critical instruction to retrieve the body schema. It does not resolve the create/update naming ambiguity or mention the _test sibling, but those are routing concerns rather than blockers to 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only describes 'body' as a request payload, which is largely generic, but it does provide the important pointer to the matching GET/schema endpoint to learn the actual expected fields. This is a pragmatic workaround rather than full parameter documentation.

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 first sentence clearly identifies a specific action, 'Update', and a specific resource, 'Discord notification settings'. However, the tool name uses 'create_' while the description says 'Update', which creates mild ambiguity, and the description does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling create_settings_notifications_discord_test tool.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to discover the expected body fields. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like the _test sibling, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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