commands_modify_guild

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

Annotations already convey mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavior: 'All command-body fields are optional' and the return shape. However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, so it provides only moderate value beyond 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 two tightly scoped sentences with clear 'Purpose' and 'Returns' labels. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 16 parameters, complex nested option objects, and annotations like openWorldHint, the description gives only a one-sentence purpose and a brief return example. It lacks guidance on partial edits, field constraints, required IDs, or how the many optional parameters relate to the command body, making it insufficient for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is only 19%, and the description does not compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It says 'All command-body fields are optional', which conveys partial-update semantics, but it never defines what counts as a 'command-body field' or explains the roles of parameters like handler, contexts, integration_types, or nsfw.

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 guild-scoped command', a specific verb+resource+scope combination that clearly identifies the tool's function. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like commands_modify_global or commands_get_guild by explicitly stating 'guild-scoped'.

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 phrase 'guild-scoped command' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus global-command tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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