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

The description discloses that this tool executes write-capable commands and requires both an approval token and explicit user approval, which are critical safety behaviors. It does not enumerate all possible side effects, but the approval gate is prominently and appropriately highlighted.

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?

A single, focused sentence states the purpose and the critical safety condition. It is concise, well-structured, and contains no redundant or tangential content.

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 schema fully documents all parameters and there is no output schema, the description plus schema provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. The relationship to the plan step is captured via the approvalToken description, and the approval requirement is stated clearly.

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?

The schema descriptions fully explain each parameter, including that args excludes the executable, the defaults for timeout/maxRetries, the origin of approvalToken, and the condition for approvedByUser. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as running a write-capable hcloud command subject to explicit user approval, and the 'write-capable' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling run_readonly_command. It also implies the connection to the planning step through the approval token.

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?

It explicitly states that the command should only be run after the exact command has been shown and approved, and the write-capable qualifier advises against using it for read-only operations. It does not explicitly contrast with run_readonly_command, but the guidance is strong and practical.

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