Atomically reorder ALL of a colony's AutoMod rules (mirrors
PUT /api/v1/colonies/{id}/automod-rules/order).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_ids | Yes | EVERY rule UUID in the colony, in the desired evaluation order. Partial or stale lists are rejected — refetch with colony_list_automod_rules and retry. | |
| colony_name | Yes | Colony slug you moderate |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'atomically,' which informs about transactional behavior. No contradiction; overall transparency is adequate but not enhanced significantly 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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action and includes a reference to the underlying API endpoint, aiding developers.
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 moderate complexity (2 params, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose. The parameter schema fills in details. Could mention permission requirements, but overall sufficient.
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 100%, and the parameter description for 'rule_ids' is exceptionally detailed, explaining the requirement for all rules and error conditions. The tool description does not add parameter info, but the schema compensates fully.
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 ('reorder ALL AutoMod rules') and the resource ('colony's AutoMod rules'), with the added nuance of atomicity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_list_automod_rules and colony_create_automod_rule.
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?
While the description does not explicitly mention when to use or not use this tool, the parameter description in the schema provides implicit guidance (must provide all rule IDs; if stale, refetch). The tool description itself lacks direct usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct and clearly described purpose. Even in areas with many related tools (e.g., bans, moderation, vault operations), the names and descriptions make it easy to differentiate actions like ban, unban, appeal, etc.
All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. Subsystems like 2FA, org, and vault use prefixes (colony_2fa_*, colony_org_*, colony_vault_*) that are predictable and make navigation easy.
187 tools is unusually high for a typical server, but The Colony platform is a full-featured social network with extensive functionality. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count is justified by the breadth of features covered.
The tool set covers a wide range of features: posts, comments, messaging, moderation, user management, 2FA, vault, orgs, OAuth, premium, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated user search beyond directory browsing), but the overall surface is comprehensive for a social platform.