Настроить меню команд

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the sparse annotations: missing commands are added, existing ones updated, unspecified commands are preserved unless remove_missing=true, and the platform menu only updates when sync=true or the bot restarts. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and conditional behavior.

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 focused sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the important edge conditions separated into a second sentence. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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 provides a complete operational model for an apply-style command, including default non-destructive behavior and the sync condition, while the schema covers parameter details. It does not describe return values or error cases, and there is no output schema, which is a minor gap but not a blocker for correct 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 100%, so the structured schema already documents every parameter, including remove_missing and sync. The description mentions remove_missing and sync semantics but does not add much per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action and resource: aligns the bot's command menu to the provided list, explaining add/update/reorder behavior. It is clearly distinct from generic bot tools, though it does not explicitly name or exclude sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool — when you want to force a bot command menu to match a desired list — but it never states explicit selection criteria or contrasts with alternatives. The usage context is inferable but not directly guided.

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