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 but offers nothing beyond the basic verb 'modify.' It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions might be required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing thread settings, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool. Every sentence should earn its place, and this single phrase doesn't earn its place by adding value.

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 complex mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'modify' entails, what fields can be changed, what the expected behavior is, or what the tool returns. The agent would have to infer everything from the parameter names alone, which is insufficient for safe and effective tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 9 parameters having clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Modify a thread' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish what kind of modifications are possible or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'modify_channel' or 'modify_member' in the same server. The description provides no additional context about the resource or scope of modifications.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions from related tools like 'modify_channel' or 'create_thread' in the sibling list. The agent receives zero usage direction beyond the tool name itself.

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