commands_modify_global

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns an updated {id, name, description, type, application_id} and that only changed fields should be sent, which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sections, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return value. Every sentence adds value 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?

Despite the tool's complexity (15 parameters, partial updates, global scope), the description omits parameter details, prerequisites, error behavior, or when to use it over alternatives. The return value is mentioned, but overall the description is too sparse for an agent to invoke this correctly without additional schema parsing.

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 only 13% with 15 parameters. The description mentions 'command-body fields' as a group but does not enumerate or explain specific parameters. It conveys that fields are optional for partial updates, which is helpful, but it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Edit a global application command', which is a specific verb+resource. The word 'global' differentiates it from guild command modifiers, and the partial-update note clarifies the operation's scope.

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?

Clearly states the tool is for global application commands and gives usage guidance ('All command-body fields are optional - pass only what changes'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., commands_modify_guild) or exclusions.

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