discord-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'modify' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens with partial updates, or potential side effects. It mentions 'timeout' as an example but doesn't explain the timeout mechanism or limitations.

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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality and includes helpful examples in parentheses. Every word earns its place in this compact description.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like required permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks crucial information about how this tool behaves in practice beyond the basic parameter documentation.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'nickname, roles, timeout, etc.' which maps to some parameters but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, constraints, or usage patterns. The baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema 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 description clearly states the verb ('modify') and resource ('member properties') with examples of what can be modified (nickname, roles, timeout, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'assign_role' or 'kick_member' by focusing on property modifications rather than specific actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'modify_role' or 'modify_server' which have similar naming patterns.

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 versus alternatives like 'assign_role', 'kick_member', or 'ban_member'. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter list alone.

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