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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them while adding real context: the panel contents, the fact that the tool itself executes nothing, and that 'Run' sends the call once through the client as a normal tool call. That last point is essential behavior not encoded anywhere in the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by what the panel shows, what the tool does not do, and the exclusions. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries a rule. Minor redundancy between 'Call this right away' and 'Always use it in that case instead of telling the user to run the command themselves'.

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 five-parameter tool with an output schema and full schema descriptions, the description covers the missing pieces: when it fires, what the user sees, that it does not execute, and what Run does. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds a non-obvious constraint beyond the schema: pass the exact tool name and arguments and 'never change, split or encode them', which is a correctness rule an agent could otherwise violate while trying to be helpful.

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 action and resource: it shows a stopped Desktop Commander call to the user in a review panel, with the exact tool and arguments and Run/Cancel buttons. It also explicitly disclaims what the tool is not ('This tool runs nothing itself'), which an agent could easily get wrong given the 'Run' button. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_recent_tool_calls or list_remote_tool_calls.

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?

Gives a precise trigger (a call blocked by the client before reaching the device, plus one unchanged retry also blocked, without asking the user first), a second trigger (user asks to see a call before it runs), and explicit exclusions (never after a timeout or connection error, never for a call the user declined or cancelled). It also names the alternative behavior it replaces: telling the user to run the command themselves.

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