discord-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the action is destructive ('Remove') but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether reactions are permanently deleted, rate limits, or what happens when parameters like 'emoji' or 'userId' are omitted. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides inadequate disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the core action clearly.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about permissions, side effects, error conditions, and what happens when optional parameters are omitted. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral context is insufficient for safe agent 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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain emoji format, ID validation, or default behaviors). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Remove reactions') and target ('from a message'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_message' or 'edit_message' that also modify message content, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like permissions), when to choose this over editing/deleting messages, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'add_reaction' or 'edit_message'.

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