Create AutoMod rule

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds constraints like timeout unavailability on certain triggers and mentions Discord-maintained lists. It does not cover potential side effects (e.g., rule limits, permissions needed) but offers useful 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 concise (6 sentences) and well-structured: starts with core functionality, then explains trigger types and action limitations. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 params, no output schema), the description covers triggers, actions, and key constraints. It lacks details on output or edge cases like conflicting parameters, but it provides enough context for an AI to use the tool 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?

With 71% schema coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that keyword_preset uses Discord-maintained lists, defines mention_limit behavior, and clarifies allow_list exemption. This adds value over the schema alone, though not every parameter is elaborated.

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 creates a server-side moderation rule, specifying the resource and verb. It differentiates from siblings like delete_automod_rule and update_automod_rule by focusing on creation. The detailed list of triggers and actions makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance on preferring keyword_preset with slurs preset for hate-speech filtering and notes that timeout is not available on spam or keyword_preset rules. However, it does not directly compare with alternative tools (e.g., when to use update_automod_rule instead), but the context given is valuable for correct usage.

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