Discord Decision MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions deletion behavior but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the Args section could be more integrated into the main description rather than a separate bullet. Overall, it's efficient and well-organized.

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 has one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a destructive tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., safety warnings, prerequisites). The output schema handles return values, but the description lacks completeness for informed usage.

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 the parameter 'read_only' fully documented in the schema. The description briefly mentions the parameter in the Args section, but adds no additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('메시지를 삭제한다' - deletes messages) and resource ('Discord inbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discord_delete_message or discord_delete_messages, which likely handle message deletion in different contexts or scopes.

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. With sibling tools like discord_delete_message and discord_delete_messages, there is no indication of how this tool differs (e.g., clearing an entire inbox vs. specific messages), leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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