Delete AutoMod rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: the two-phase deletion process, the immediate effect ('its protection stops immediately'), and that the first call is non-destructive. This goes beyond simple destructive intent and informs the agent about the safe invocation path. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action and effect, explaining the safe call pattern, and offering an alternative. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of redundant wording, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, immediate consequences, the safe two-step protocol with a returned token, and a reversible alternative. It does not detail the dry_run behavior or preview contents, but with no output schema, it still gives the agent enough to invoke correctly. Slight gap in not explaining all parameters, but overall complete enough.

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%, covering rule and guild. The description compensates partially by explaining the confirm_token's role in the two-step delete flow, which is not documented in the schema. However, it does not address the dry_run parameter, so the description does not fully fill the gap. A score of 3 reflects partial compensation.

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 opens with 'Delete an AutoMod rule; its protection stops immediately,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_automod_rule and create_automod_rule. The confirmation flow detail adds further specificity, ensuring no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explains when and how to use the tool: 'Safe to call directly: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus a confirm_token; repeating the call with the token deletes it.' It also names the reversible alternative with 'Disabling is the reversible alternative,' giving the agent clear guidance on choosing between deletion and disabling.

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