Update app command

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations by disclosing that omitted fields are preserved and that options replacement is wholesale. This warns of potentially destructive behavior, which is not captured by readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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 moderate-complexity mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial updates, and the critical options-replacement caveat. It lacks return-value details but is otherwise sufficient given the rich schema and annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful partial-update semantics ('Anything not passed is left as it is') that clarify behavior for both description and options parameters, going slightly beyond the schema 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 clearly states the action ('Change') and the resource ('a registered command's description or options'). It distinguishes from siblings like register_app_command and delete_app_command by focusing on modification of existing commands.

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 usage for updating existing commands ('registered command') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides partial-update guidance but lacks a direct comparison with register_app_command or delete_app_command.

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