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

Annotations already set destructiveHint: true, and the description adds the warning emoji and the phrase 'Use with care,' reinforcing the dangerous nature. It also includes the API endpoint for context. While it doesn't detail side effects or failure outcomes, the combination with annotations provides adequate transparency.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence and the API endpoint. No unnecessary words or repetition, and the critical warning is front-loaded with the emoji.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (running arbitrary commands), the description is minimal. It fails to mention return value, error handling, or permission requirements. Given no output schema, the description should provide more operational detail for an AI agent to use it 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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Runs an arbitrary shell command in the site's directory on the server,' providing a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like forge_deploy_site or forge_list_sites.

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 includes 'Use with care' and the destructiveHint annotation signals caution, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like forge_deploy_site for standard operations. It implies prudent use but lacks exclusion criteria.

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