ecp_apps_save_custom_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool does not run the command, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose whether saving overwrites existing commands, whether commands are validated, or what the response contains. The 'does not run it' clarification is valuable but incomplete.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a parenthetical clarification about execution. It is concise and every word earns its place, though the parenthetical could be seen as slightly verbose.

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 simple save operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the critical non-execution behavior. However, it lacks details about overwrite semantics, validation, or response format, which an agent might need to call it correctly. It is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It mentions 'named custom command' and 'for an app', which loosely maps to 'commands' and 'app_id', but it doesn't explain the structure of the commands array, the meaning of 'title' vs 'command', or any constraints. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names.

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 a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('named custom command for an app'), and clarifies that it does not run the command. It distinguishes itself from a hypothetical 'run' operation, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool. The purpose is clear and actionable.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to persist a custom command without executing it. It references a 'blocked command-execution phase' in the plan, which provides context but no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say when not to use it or point to a sibling for running commands, so guidance is partial.

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