Update default command

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety bar is lower here and nothing in the description contradicts them. The description adds concrete payload shapes but says nothing about whether unspecified settings are preserved or overwritten, nor about permission requirements for high accessLevel values.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the operation stated first and the id-sourcing hint last. The inline JSON examples add length but directly reduce invocation ambiguity for an untyped settings object.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: the target resource, the id source, and sample setting values. The main remaining gap is merge-vs-replace semantics for the settings object, which is only weakly implied by 'settings to change'.

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 100%, but the critical settings object is an open additionalProperties map with no documented keys, so the description's examples ('enabled', 'cooldown.user/global', 'accessLevel') carry real information the schema cannot. commandId sourcing from commands_list_default is also restated usefully, though channel is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (update/change) and resource (built-in default command settings), and the word 'default' distinguishes it from the sibling commands_update, which handles user-created commands. It does not explicitly name commands_update as the contrasting alternative, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 routes the agent to commands_list_default for obtaining valid commandId values, which is genuinely useful usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over commands_update or what preconditions (permissions, plan tier) must hold, leaving the main selection decision to inference.

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