automod_modify_rule

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: patch semantics (only provided fields are updated), immutability of trigger_type, and the return object shape. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the annotation coverage plus these extras are strong.

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 compact, uses clear bold headers, and front-loads the purpose. The bulleted usage list and note are easy to scan, with no filler or redundant information.

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?

The description covers purpose, patch semantics, an important immutable constraint, and return shape. With the output schema present, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It does not elaborate on parameter interdependencies (e.g., trigger_metadata fields valid per trigger_type), but the schema's nested descriptions partly cover that.

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 only 50%, and the description mentions only 'keyword list, actions, enabled' as examples, leaving other parameters (exempt_roles, exempt_channels, trigger_metadata, audit_reason) implied. It does add the critical patch semantics ('Pass only fields you want to change'), but it does not fully compensate for the schema's incomplete parameter 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 states 'Update an AutoMod rule's settings' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies partial-update behavior with 'Pass only fields you want to change.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like automod_create_rule, automod_delete_rule, automod_get_rule, and automod_list_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 includes a dedicated 'When to use' section listing concrete scenarios (tweak keyword list, change actions, toggle enabled). It also provides an explicit alternative for the immutable trigger_type field: 'delete and recreate.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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