add_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not disclose permissions required, whether the tool overwrites existing commands, rate limits, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 packs essential information (action, name example, two key parameters) without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main function, though it could be broken into a list for clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, 5 parameters, and no annotations, the description should cover return value, error cases, overwrite behavior, and permissions. It lacks these completeness aspects, leaving the agent underinformed for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for user_level (enumerating allowed values) and cooldown (specifying range). However, it does not explain the dry_run parameter, message format, or the precise syntax for the name. It provides partial but useful clarification.

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 tool adds a custom command and explains the name format (like !rules), distinguishing it from siblings like update_command and delete_command. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from similar tools like add_timer.

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 provides useful guidance on user_level options and cooldown range, implying when to set these parameters. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., what happens if a command with the same name exists).

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