Update AutoMod rule

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing specific mutation behaviors: rename, enable/disable, and keyword replacement. It clarifies that keyword replacement is a full replacement, not an append. 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 a single sentence that efficiently lists three actions without superfluous words. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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 has 5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the main use cases. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or default guild behavior, but these are minor gaps for an update 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 description coverage is 60% (3 out of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description groups parameters by action (rename → name, enable/disable → enabled, replace keywords → keywords), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not provide constraints or syntax details for these 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 three distinct actions: rename, enable/disable, and replace keyword list. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (AutoMod rule). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_automod_rule, delete_automod_rule, and list_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?

The description implies usage based on the action type but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'for creating new rules, use create_automod_rule'). The guidance is implicit from the tool name and context.

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