Discord Decision MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: blocking behavior ('블로킹 대기'), timeout handling with defaults, and response format details in the Returns section. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the thread_id is invalid. It adds useful context but leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points explaining key parameters and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place—no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters and complex blocking behavior.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (blocking wait, multiple parameters, interaction with Discord), the description is complete. With 100% schema coverage and an output schema provided (the Returns section), the description doesn't need to explain parameter details or return values. It focuses on the higher-level purpose, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, which is exactly what's needed.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: it explains that timeout_seconds=None means infinite wait (recommended), clarifies options=[] enables free-text response while options=[...] provides choices, and recommends A/B/C format for options. This provides valuable usage guidance that complements the schema.

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 tool's purpose: '사용자의 결정이 필요할 때 Discord Thread에 질문을 전송하고 응답이 올 때까지 블로킹 대기한다' (sends a question to a Discord Thread when user decision is needed and blocks waiting for response). It specifies the exact action (send question to Discord Thread), resource (Discord Thread), and distinguishes from siblings like discord_notify (notification) or discord_report_progress (progress reporting).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: '사용자의 결정이 필요할 때' (when user decision is needed). It implies this is for interactive decision-making scenarios, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., discord_notify for one-way notifications). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.

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