Update an existing Discord AutoModeration rule's name or enabled state by rule ID, with an optional audit log reason.
Edit an existing AutoModeration rule (name or toggle enabled state)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name | |
| reason | No | Audit log reason | |
| ruleId | Yes | Rule ID to edit | |
| enabled | No | Enable or disable rule | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Edit' (implying mutation) and mentions the two fields that can be changed, but does not disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, audit-log implications (there is a 'reason' param), or what happens to other rule properties. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, tight sentence with the parenthetical enumerating modifiable fields. Front-loaded verb-resource, no waste.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know permission requirements, what happens to unspecified fields, and the audit-log (reason) semantics. Five parameters, 100% schema coverage helps, but the behavioral void is not filled.
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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal semantics by listing the two editable fields; it doesn't explain the 'reason' audit-log parameter or the 'guildId' default behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb (Edit) and resource (AutoModeration rule), and clarifies the two editable dimensions (name, enabled state). It distinguishes from delete_automod_rule and create_automod_rule, though it doesn't mention get_automod_rule or list_automod_rules as related read tools.
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?
Usage is implied – clearly for modifying an existing rule – but there are no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives statements, no prerequisites (e.g., need manage-guild permissions), and no conditions for choosing this over delete-and-recreate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.