Enable/disable a command or folder

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and potential side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds specific behavioral detail: syncing platform-side reward state for certain 'kind' values. It is honest about the side effect, which is valuable 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then provides necessary detail. No wasted words; every phrase adds value. It is both concise and informative.

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 the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 enums), the description covers the main purpose and the command case well, but it is incomplete for the folder target (does not explain if 'kind' is irrelevant) and does not mention success/failure indicators or error behavior.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant meaning by explaining that the 'kind' parameter chooses a command list and that points/extension kinds trigger syncing. This goes beyond the schema's description and helps agents understand the implications of each enum value.

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 clearly states the verb 'Enable or disable' and the resource 'a command, or a whole command folder'. It specifies that 'name' identifies the target and details the different 'kind' values for commands, effectively distinguishing the tool's scope from siblings like 'manage_chatbot_command' or 'trigger_command'.

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 provides context for using the tool, especially the sync behavior for points/extension kinds, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. An agent would benefit from knowing limitations or prerequisite conditions.

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