set_my_commands

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, but the description adds little beyond 'shown in the menu'. It does not disclose whether the command list replaces existing commands, how scope affects behavior, or any permission requirements.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

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?

The description is severely incomplete given the tool has three undocumented parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain the meaning of scope and language_code, or what response to expect, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%: the description does not explain any of the three parameters (scope, commands, language_code). Even 'commands' is only vaguely implied by 'command list', and scope/language_code are completely omitted.

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 'Set' and the resource 'bot's command list', with the added context 'shown in the menu' which distinguishes it from get_my_commands and delete_my_commands. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_my_commands reads the current list or delete_my_commands removes it, nor does it clarify scope/language usage contexts.

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