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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the local configuration requirement ('Writes must be enabled locally') and notes the bot as the actor, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose additional behaviors like error handling, rate limits, or idempotency details beyond what the annotations provide. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences that lead with the core action, followed by a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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 simple mutation tool, the description covers the primary purpose and a critical local configuration requirement. The annotations handle safety traits (readOnly, destructive) and idempotency. However, it doesn't mention edge cases like duplicate reactions, emoji format details, or error scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage, it's sufficiently complete for an AI agent, though not exhaustive.

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 only describes the 'emoji' parameter (33% coverage), leaving channelId and messageId undefined. The description does not compensate for this gap—it says nothing about what these parameters mean or how they relate to the target message. For a low-coverage schema, the description should clarify parameter semantics, but it doesn't add any value beyond 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 action: 'Add a reaction as the configured bot.' It specifies a verb ('Add') and a resource ('reaction'), and the 'configured bot' context distinguishes it from general Discord operations. This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like sending messages or admin actions.

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 a prerequisite ('Writes must be enabled locally') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where adding a reaction is appropriate or how it differs from discord_send_message or admin tools. No explicit or implicit usage context is provided beyond the action itself.

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

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming this is a read operation. It adds the detail that the tool uses Discord's standard filters, which gives context about how the tool behaves. However, it does not disclose further behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or exact return format. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource without any filler. It is entirely appropriate in size and structure.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but conveys the core purpose and hints at filter behavior. Given the annotations provided, it is sufficient for a straightforward read tool, but it lacks detail about return values and specific filter semantics that would make it more complete.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The phrase 'with Discord's standard filters' provides a conceptual link to the parameters (after, before, userId, actionType, limit) as being standard Discord audit log filters, which is useful. However, it does not explain each parameter individually, and with zero schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'server audit log', making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like discord_admin_messages or discord_admin_threads. It does not explicitly contrast with other admin tools, but the resource is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It only hints at 'Discord's standard filters', which implies usage context but does not directly state it.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description merely repeats the operation list without adding any new behavioral context such as permissions required, permanence of deletion, or effect on existing rules. It adds no value beyond structured fields.

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 that lists all supported operations with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easily scannable, making it an appropriately concise summary.

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 CRUD tool with no output schema and a generic data parameter, the description is too terse. It omits the parameter relationships (which itemId is needed for get/update/delete), the shape of the data payload, permission requirements, and what the operation returns. The description lacks operational depth.

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 50% (only data and reason have descriptions). The description lists operations but does not explain how itemId, data, and reason map to specific operations, nor how to structure the data payload. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's function as managing AutoMod rules with five specific CRUD operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling admin tools (e.g., discord_admin_channels, discord_admin_roles) by naming the specific resource, AutoMod rules.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and operation list, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention preconditions, permissions, or exclusions. It's a minimal viable statement.

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

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

The annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description simply lists operations without adding context such as whether operations are reversible, require special permissions, or have side effects (e.g., audit-log reasons). It repeats what the schema enum already exposes, adding no behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to naming the operations and the resource, with no filler or repetition.

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?

With 5 parameters and 7 distinct operations, the description is far too brief to be contextually complete. It does not mention that parameter requirements vary by operation, nor does it describe expected return values or error conditions. An agent would need to infer critical usage details from the schema alone, which is insufficient for safe/effective 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 covers 60% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool description does not explain how parameters map to each operation. For instance, it never states that delete requires channelId or that set_permission needs channelId, targetId, and data. The prose adds no meaning beyond the schema's existing field descriptions.

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 enumerates the specific operations this tool performs (list, create, update, delete, reorder, modify permission overwrites) and identifies the resource as 'rooms and categories' (Discord channels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_admin_roles or discord_list_channels.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that read-only channel listing is handled by discord_list_channels, nor does it explain when to choose specific operations. The only implied usage arises from the operation list itself.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds no additional context such as irreversible delete operations, permission requirements, or rate-limit considerations. The tool's dual read/write nature is only implicitly conveyed through the operation list.

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?

One concise sentence that clearly lists the operations and resource. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

The tool covers five distinct operations with different inputs and outputs, but the description does not indicate response formats, required fields per operation, or operation-specific constraints. The lack of an output schema further increases the need for a more detailed description, which is absent.

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 description does not explain the meaning of any parameters. With schema description coverage at only 50%, it fails to clarify how to use 'data' or 'itemId' for each operation.

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 uses specific verbs (list, get, create, update, delete) with a clear resource ('server emojis'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling admin tools by targeting emojis specifically.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_admin_stickers or other admin tools. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) or exclusions for certain operations.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as permission requirements, side effects of deletion, or rate limits. It merely repeats the CRUD actions without explaining consequences or prerequisites.

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, concise sentence that is easily scannable. It does not waste words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 CRUD tool with multiple operations and 4 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to target a specific event, what the data payload should look like, or what the response contains. Given the lack of an output schema and minimal annotations, the description fails to provide adequate context.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters like data, itemId, or reason. It only aligns with the operation enum, which is already visible in the schema. No additional meaning is provided for the less-documented parameters.

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: 'List, create, update, or delete scheduled server events.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling admin tools. While it omits the 'get' operation present in the schema, the core actions are well covered.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the large family of discord_admin_* tools, some usage direction would be helpful.

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

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

The description states deletion is not available in this tool (it's via the raw admin tool), but annotations include destructiveHint: true. This is a contradiction. No other behavioral details are disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain return values or the expected data payload for create operations. The deletion pointer is helpful, but missing details about parameters and behavior make it only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 50%, with data and reason having descriptions while channelId lacks description and operation only has an enum. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the enum values (list_guild, list_channel, create) are self-explanatory and align with 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 clearly states the tool lists or creates invites for servers/channels, using specific verbs and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the raw admin tool by noting deletion is available there.

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 explicitly points to the guarded raw admin tool for deletion, providing a clear alternative. It does not elaborate on when to prefer this over other admin tools, but the list/create scope is evident from the description and sibling context.

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

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

The description mentions 'administer' and lists 'kicks, and bans', which implies destructive capabilities, aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. However, it adds little beyond the annotations; it does not disclose specifics like whether timeouts require a body, whether bans are reversible, or how the operation affects existing member state. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Inspect or administer members') and then lists the key areas. It is efficient with no redundant wording, though the list format is slightly dense.

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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, a 10-value operation enum, and no output schema. The description is extremely brief and does not explain how to choose an operation, what the 'data' payload should contain, how pagination works, or what responses look like. Given the tool's breadth, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional guidance.

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 25% (only 'data' and 'reason' have descriptions). The description does not compensate for the other parameters such as 'after', 'limit', 'search', 'userId', and 'roleId'. While parameter names and the operation enum convey some meaning, the description adds no additional semantic detail for these parameters, leaving a significant gap.

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 states a clear resource (members) and enumerates related actions (roles, timeouts, voice state, kicks, bans). It is sufficiently specific to indicate this tool handles member administration, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool discord_admin_roles. The verb 'inspect or administer' is somewhat broad, but the list of resources narrows the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discord_admin_roles for role-specific tasks or discord_admin_server for server-wide configuration. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds little beyond restating operations; it does not disclose side effects, rate limits, required permissions, or constraints (e.g., bulk-delete limits). No contradiction with annotations is present.

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, perfectly concise sentence that front-loads the primary actions. Every word is functional, and no filler is present.

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 tool with multiple operations, five parameters, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return values, operation-specific input requirements, and behavioral constraints. The tool's complexity demands far more detail for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description repeats operation names from the 'operation' enum but does not explain how parameters like data, messageId, channelId, or reason map to each operation. With only 40% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter detail.

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 a set of operations ('Get, edit, delete, bulk-delete, pin, unpin, or list pinned messages') on the 'messages' resource. It is specific and largely distinguishes this tool from siblings like discord_read_messages by focusing on admin actions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as discord_send_message or discord_read_messages. There is no mention of prerequisites, operation selection criteria, or exclusions (e.g., when bulk_delete is preferred over delete). The description is purely a list of capabilities.

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

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

It goes beyond the annotations by revealing that non-GET calls require destructive admin to be enabled locally, full URLs and cross-guild paths are rejected, and returned secrets are redacted. These are non-obvious behavioral details that meaningfully affect invocation and output handling. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 three sentences, each carrying essential information: what the tool does, the permission requirement, and key input/output constraints. It is dense but not verbose, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 generic raw API access tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: scope (guild/channels/webhooks), permission requirements, input restrictions, and output redaction. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool safely.

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 already describes path, method, data, and reason with 75% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by specifying that full URLs and cross-guild paths are rejected, which clarifies the expected path format beyond the schema's '/api/v10' omission note. This additional nuance warrants a 4.

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 provides 'advanced access to any Discord REST endpoint scoped to the configured guild, its channels, or its webhooks.' This distinguishes it from the sibling-specific admin tools by framing it as a generic raw API access tool with a defined scope. The constraints on full URLs and cross-guild paths further clarify its exact purpose.

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 gives clear context that this is an advanced access tool for endpoints not covered by dedicated siblings, and it includes prerequisites ('Non-GET calls require destructive admin to be enabled locally') and constraints ('Full URLs and cross-guild paths are rejected'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when you need an endpoint not exposed by other tools,' so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

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

The description merely restates the operation enum values from the schema (list, create, update, reorder, delete) and adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not mention permissions, permanent deletion, side effects of reordering, or audit-log requirements, such as the 'reason' parameter. With destructiveHint=true already communicated, the description contributes little additional transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core actions. It contains no fluff or redundant detail, earning its place efficiently.

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?

With no output schema and only a terse description, the tool lacks crucial context for an agent: how to construct the 'data' payload, whether roleId is required for update/delete/reorder, what response format to expect, and additional behavioral side effects. The description is too minimal for a four-parameter tool with a destructive annotation and an open-world hint.

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 coverage is 50% (data and reason have descriptions; roleId and operation lack them). The description names the operations but does not explain how roleId, data, or reason are used together, nor does it clarify the format of the 'data' request body. The operation parameter's enum already conveys the allowed values, so the description adds marginal semantic value.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'List, create, update, reorder, or delete server roles.' It uses specific verbs and the resource (server roles), and the sibling tools distinguish it from channels, members, messages, etc. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 implies usage for role management but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like discord_admin_channels or discord_admin_request. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites, making the usage context clear only by inference from the resource name.

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

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't specify which operations are destructive, permission requirements, or side effects of pruning. Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description fails to elaborate on what destruction occurs or when.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, sacrificing completeness for brevity, but it still earns a high score on conciseness due to its efficient structure.

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 5-parameter tool with four distinct operations, including destructive prune, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the full scope of operations, return values, or when to use this over other admin tools, and there is no output schema to fill the gaps.

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 coverage is low (40%), and the description provides no parameter semantics. The meaning of 'data', 'days', and 'includeRoles' is entirely unclear, and the description doesn't compensate for the schema's missing details.

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 identifies the tool as reading or modifying the configured Discord server's settings, with a specific verb and resource. However, it omits the prune operations visible in the schema and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like discord_get_server or discord_admin_request.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the operation enum.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, so the description adds little beyond that. It does not disclose side effects like permanence of deletion, permission requirements, or response conventions. The phrase 'using JSON-capable endpoints' is vague and provides no concrete behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads the core operations. Every word contributes to purpose definition, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and multiple operations, the description should explain return values, error behavior, or pagination for list, but it does none of this. The minimal text leaves the agent under-informed for a multi-operation admin tool with destructive actions.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description does not clarify the missing itemId parameter or the expected shape of the data body. It merely repeats the operation names found in the schema enum, offering no additional meaning for parameter usage.

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 manages server stickers with specific verbs (list, get, create, update, delete). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like discord_admin_emojis or discord_admin_roles, which target different resources.

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 implies use for sticker management through its resource focus and operation list. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as discord_admin_request, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds no extra context about permissions, side effects of removing members, idempotency, or what 'update' entails. It doesn't contradict annotations but provides no behavioral transparency beyond them.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action 'List active threads', and avoids unnecessary words. It is concise and structurally acceptable, though it could benefit from more structured elaboration of operations.

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?

With 5 parameters, 7 operations, no output schema, and sparse annotations, this description is too brief. It leaves the agent uncertain about operation-specific requirements, expected responses, and relationships to other admin tools, making the tool incomplete for complex invocations.

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 40%, and the description does not compensate. It fails to clarify the roles of userId, threadId, or data for different operations, nor how the operation enum maps to required parameters. The operation list is present in the schema, but the description adds no semantic meaning to the parameters.

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 lists active threads and manages thread membership, naming the resource and specific actions. It distinguishes from thread creation (discord_create_thread) by focusing on existing threads, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives. The compound nature is slightly broad but still specific enough.

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 sibling tools like discord_admin_channels or discord_admin_members, nor does it explain operation-specific prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the stated capabilities, not explicitly directed.

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

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

Annotations signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which already warn about mutations. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: 'Returned webhook tokens are always redacted.' This is not present in annotations and helps the agent understand response behavior. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond basic mutations.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding one crucial safety note about token redaction. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, multiple operations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify which parameters apply to which operation, how to structure data for create/update, or what the expected return format is. The tool is clearly a multi-function CRUD endpoint, but the description alone leaves the agent under-informed for correct 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 only 40% (2 of 5 properties have descriptions), and the tool description does not compensate. It does not explain the role of data, channelId, webhookId, or reason in different operations. The phrase 'List, create, update, or delete webhooks' provides high-level intent but no parameter-level meaning. With low schema coverage, the description should have elaborated on parameter usage but does not.

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 function: 'List, create, update, or delete webhooks.' This uses a specific verb list and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like discord_admin_channels or discord_admin_messages. It unambiguously conveys the scope of operations.

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 or how to choose among the five operations. It lists operations but does not state prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify that webhookId is required for update/delete or that channelId is needed for list_channel.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context: the thread is public and local write permission is required, which goes beyond structured fields.

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?

Exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second a key precondition. No redundant words or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what happens on success or failure. It lacks parameter guidance and error conditions. For a three-parameter create tool, this is too sparse to be fully actionable.

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 channelId has a description), so the description must compensate. It does not mention name constraints, autoArchiveMinutes allowed values, or how channelId relates to 'allowed text channel.' No parameter semantics are clarified.

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 'Create a public thread in an allowed text channel,' a specific verb + resource + constraint. It differentiates from sibling tools like discord_send_message and discord_admin_threads by specifying 'public thread' and channel authorization.

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 gives context by saying 'Writes must be enabled locally' and 'allowed text channel,' implying when the tool can be used, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal context ('configured for this local MCP instance') but does not disclose what the response includes or any behavior such as what happens if no server is configured. Given the annotations, a moderate score is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description could be more complete by indicating what information about the server will be returned (e.g., name, ID, settings). Without an output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, which it fails to do explicitly. Still, the purpose is clear enough for a basic getter.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none. A baseline of 4 is justified for a no-parameter tool.

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 function: retrieving the Discord server configured for the local MCP instance. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Discord server'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle channels, messages, threads, etc.

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 implies usage when one needs the server configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred sibling tools, so the usage context is inferred rather than direct.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context by explaining that the result may be narrowed by a local allowlist and that visibility is limited to the local instance, making the open-world behavior concrete. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value—there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description completely covers the essentials: what is returned (channels), the scope (local instance), and a key caveat (allowlist). No further information is necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 specifies the action ('List') and resource ('channels'), with an explicit scope ('visible through this local MCP instance'). It also notes the allowlist caveat, distinguishing it from admin channel tools that likely operate on a broader 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?

The description implies when to use it: for reading channels visible to the local MCP instance, with a possible allowlist filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize it as a read-only listing tool distinct from admin channel management.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about 'allowed channel', implying permission restrictions, but does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or the structure of the returned messages.

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 sentence with no redundant words, effectively front-loading the primary action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks detail on return value structure (e.g., message content, metadata) and the exact meaning of 'allowed' is vague.

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 50%; channelId has a description, but limit lacks one. The tool description does not explain parameter behavior, particularly how limit controls the number of messages returned. The schema's default/min/max provide constraints but not semantic meaning.

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 reads recent messages from a channel, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_send_message and discord_admin_messages by focusing on read-only access to messages from an allowed channel.

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 implies the tool is for reading message history but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like discord_admin_messages or discord_list_channels. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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

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

The description adds the behavioral requirement 'Writes must be enabled locally,' which is a meaningful environmental constraint not captured in the annotations. It also clarifies that the action is performed as the configured bot. However, it does not detail side effects or rate limits, though annotations already cover read/write and idempotency.

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 sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key prerequisite. No information is redundant or extraneous.

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 simple message-sending tool, the description covers the core function and a critical local write requirement. It does not address return values or edge cases, but given the simple nature and existing annotations, it is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is low (only channelId has a description), so the description helps by implying that content is the message text and replyToMessageId is for replies. Yet it does not explicitly map parameters or explain optional behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Send a Discord message or reply as the configured bot.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the wording distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_list_channels or discord_read_messages.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Writes must be enabled locally,' which is useful context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Usage is implied as the tool for sending messages, but no alternative guidance is given.

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