discord_delete_automod_rule

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and non-idempotency, but the description adds real context beyond them: the operation is irreversible with no Discord-side undo, a specific permission is required, and the tool reports which rule was removed. It also explains why the usual destructive-tool caution about lost member data doesn't apply here.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the irreversibility warning, with no filler. The final sentence packs two ideas (no undo, returns which rule was removed) into one clause chain, which slightly muddies the closing point.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: permission requirement, irreversibility, absence of undo, and the safety rationale. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is absent.

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 guild_id, rule_id, and the optional audit-log reason are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as snowflake format or what the audit-log reason is used for, so the baseline 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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Delete an AutoMod rule"), which is unambiguous against siblings like discord_edit_automod_rule or discord_list_automod_rules. It never explicitly names an alternative tool, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiated rather than 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?

It states the permission prerequisite ("Requires Manage Server") and pre-empts the obvious question of whether a confirmation step is needed by explaining why no preview exists. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent (e.g. "use discord_list_automod_rules first to obtain rule_id") or naming when to prefer edit over delete.

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