discord_edit_automod_rule

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

Annotations only say not-read-only, not-destructive, idempotent, open-world; the description adds the auth requirement, the PATCH-style merge semantics, the immutability of trigger_type, and the return ("Returns the updated rule"). It also implicitly qualifies destructiveHint=false by disclosing that arrays are replaced wholesale rather than merged, which is the kind of nuance an agent needs before overwriting a keyword list.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope, then the partial-update rule, then the hard constraint with its workaround, then the return and permission. No sentence is filler.

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 14-parameter mutation tool, the description covers permissions, partial-update semantics, the one immutable field, and the response; an output schema exists so return-value detail is not needed. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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% and all 14 params are individually documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: only supplied fields change, and one field the caller might expect to edit (trigger_type) is absent by design because it cannot be changed. It does not group or explain the trigger-metadata fields (keywords vs presets vs regex) beyond naming them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an AutoMod rule") and enumerates exactly what is mutable: name, enabled state, trigger metadata, actions, exemptions. An agent can distinguish this from discord_create_automod_rule, discord_get_automod_rule and discord_delete_automod_rule on the verb alone.

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?

Gives the prerequisite ("Requires Manage Server"), the partial-update contract ("Only provided fields change"), and an explicit alternative path when the change is impossible here: "trigger_type cannot be changed after creation... so delete and recreate to switch trigger type." That is a concrete when-not-and-what-instead rule.

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