Create custom command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing behavioral on top of that — it never mentions auth/channel requirements, what happens if the command name already exists, or the effect of creating a command on the live channel.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. But for a 14-parameter creation tool with nested objects it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it does not reach the top of this dimension.

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 create operation with 14 parameters, two required fields, nested cooldown/accessLevel objects, and no output schema, the single sentence leaves the agent without side-effect, prerequisite, or failure-mode context. Annotations cover only the safety profile; the description does not fill the remaining gaps.

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 100% across all 14 parameters, including required 'command' and 'reply' and nested cooldown/accessLevel semantics, so the schema carries the full burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning (no default behavior, no explanation of type 'say' vs other modes), which is the baseline 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a custom chat bot command'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it is almost a verbatim restatement of the title 'Create custom command' and adds no differentiation from siblings such as commands_update or commands_delete, so it goes little beyond the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related commands_update / commands_list siblings. The agent gets no signal about when creating is appropriate versus updating an existing command.

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