commands_edit_command_permissions

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint: false) and idempotence. The description adds critical behavioral context: user OAuth token is required (not bot token), user must have manage-guild permission, and it returns the updated permission object. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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?

Structured with bold section labels and every sentence earns its place. It covers purpose, auth, body format, and return value in a compact, readable format without unnecessary detail.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on the auth caveat, body structure, and expected response. It provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool safely and understand the side effects, which is suitably complete for a mutation tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds valuable semantics by explaining the permission type mapping (1=ROLE, 2=USER, 3=CHANNEL) which the schema only conveys as integer bounds, and clarifies the bearer_token requirement as a user credential.

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 action ('Set per-command permission overrides') and identifies the exact resource (one command in a guild). It clearly differentiates from sibling permission read tools by focusing on editing rather than retrieving.

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?

Provides context on when to use (guild-managing user with OAuth) and what it does, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with read-only permission tools like commands_get_command_permissions. The auth and scope guidance is clear but no exclusionary guidance is given.

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