ads_discord_channel_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key gating behavior: an explicit confirm=true is required and the write is limited to a single plain-text message. It does not state permission/auth requirements, rate limits, whether the send is irreversible, or what happens on failure — notable omissions for an unannotated outbound-messaging 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and gate, with the scope exclusions packed into the trailing clause. Nothing is redundant and every clause adds usable constraint.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the confirm gate, message type, and cardinality limits, which is most of what an agent needs. The missing piece is channel_id sourcing and success/failure behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 only 33% (only confirm is documented), so the description must compensate; it partially does by clarifying that text is plain-text and channel_id is a single selected channel. However it never explains how to obtain a valid channel_id (sibling ads_discord_channel_list exists) or the 2000-char limit context, leaving a real gap for the two undocumented params.

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?

States a specific verb (send), a specific resource (one plain-text message), and a specific target (one selected Discord channel). The negative scope clause ('No bulk sends and no member DMs') cleanly separates it from batch/DM-style siblings such as ads_client_profile_batch_send and ads_mastodon_direct_message.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('after explicit confirm=true') and explicit exclusions (no bulk, no DMs), which tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the excluded cases (e.g. where to go for channel discovery or Telegram equivalents), so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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