Permanently deletes an AutoModeration rule from a Discord server by rule ID, optionally logging an audit reason.
Permanently delete an AutoModeration rule from the server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Audit log reason | |
| ruleId | Yes | Rule ID to delete | |
| guildId | No | Discord server ID (defaults to DISCORD_GUILD_ID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Permanently' usefully discloses that the operation is irreversible. However, it omits the permission scope required (e.g. Manage Server), the audit-log behavior tied to the reason parameter, and any warning that the rule cannot be recovered.
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?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a destructive operation where a second sentence about irreversibility would earn its place.
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 simple single-resource delete with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core information is present. The gap is behavioral: no annotation coverage means the description should have addressed permission requirements and destructive consequences, which it only partially touches via 'Permanently'.
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 100%, so all three parameters (ruleId, reason, guildId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (AutoModeration rule) with an added qualifier (Permanently), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling edit_automod_rule, create_automod_rule, and get_automod_rule. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or consequences. For a destructive operation this is a notable omission, leaving the agent to infer everything about when deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.