Set AutoDM

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description justifies the destructive flag by stating 'message replaces the text' (existing text is overwritten) and clarifies the toggle semantics of 'enabled'. It also adds the Pro-plan gating and admin-only auth requirement, which annotations do not cover. Minor gap: no statement of what happens to the message when only 'enabled' is passed.

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 lead sentence is good and front-loaded, but the body repeats itself: 'Admins only' appears twice and 'Changes the group's AutoDM' restates the title. Roughly a third of the text is redundant, though nothing is actively confusing.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not need one since the effect is described ('every new member gets the result'). For a three-parameter mutation with annotations present, it covers auth, plan gating, and overwrite behavior adequately. Only the partial-update semantics (supplying 'enabled' alone) are left unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the #NAME#/#GROUPNAME# placeholders and the Pro-plan note. The description's 'message replaces the text' and 'enabled turns it on or off' essentially restate the schema. Baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource: change the group's AutoDM welcome message or toggle it on/off. It is clearly a write counterpart to the get_auto_dm sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

It supplies useful preconditions — admins only, and 'enabled' requires the Pro plan — and explains the downstream effect (every new member gets the result). But it never states when to prefer this over get_auto_dm for reading current state, nor what to do if the group is not on Pro. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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