automod_create_rule

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

Annotations already denote a non-read-only mutation and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the conditional dependency of trigger_metadata on trigger_type (e.g., '1 KEYWORD → keyword_filter, regex_patterns, allow_list') and specifying the return shape. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with bold headers, bullet points, and a clear returns line. It is concise—every sentence provides necessary information without repetition or fluff. The conditional mapping is presented compactly and is easy to scan.

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 tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, and complex conditional logic, the description covers purpose, usage, conditional metadata, and return value. It is complemented by full schema documentation, making it comprehensive. No critical missing context (e.g., permissions, errors) is apparent for the agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by mapping each trigger_type to the applicable trigger_metadata fields, which is not explicitly enumerated in the schema comments. This helps the agent decide which combinations to use, exceeding the bare schema descriptions.

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 'Purpose: Create an AutoMod rule', which is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like automod_modify_rule, automod_get_rule, automod_delete_rule, and automod_list_rules by explicitly focusing on creation.

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 'When to use' section provides concrete examples (keyword filter, spam blocker, mention-raid guard) indicating the tool's intended scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context of sibling tool names offers enough differentiation.

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