discord_automod

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety burden is partly lifted, yet the description adds nothing about what delete removes, whether create/edit are reversible, or what permissions or rate limits apply. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation profile beyond pointing at discord_help.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the action list before the escalation pointer. No filler, though the terseness means the escape hatch to discord_help is doing more work than the prose.

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 six-parameter, five-action destructive tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description supplies no per-action requirements and defers everything to discord_help. The deferral is explicit and actionable, which keeps it viable, but the agent must make an extra call before it can invoke any action 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents body, files, params, query and reason. The description only tells the agent to fetch per-action required IDs and request fields from discord_help, which is a pointer rather than added semantic meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Discord automod" names the resource and the action enum (list/get/create/edit/delete) implies a CRUD surface for auto-moderation rules, but the description never says what automod actually is or manages. With a sibling named discord_moderation, an agent cannot tell from this text which one covers moderation rules versus automod configuration.

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 only guidance is a documentation-routing instruction ("Call discord_help with group=\"automod\" and action"), which is not a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when this tool applies versus discord_moderation or any other sibling, and no preconditions such as required permissions.

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