erlc_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It omits whether this is a mutating/admin action, what permissions are required, what commands are valid, whether execution is reversible, and how v1 vs v2 differ in behavior. For a command-execution tool this is a major gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as tight wording.

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?

A command-execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation leaves the agent without enough to invoke it safely or correctly. Command format, permissions, and version behavior are all 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 description coverage is 0%, so nothing in the schema explains the 'command' string format or valid values, and the description does not compensate with syntax or examples. It only notes the version default (v2), which the schema already states via the default field.

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 clear verb+resource: running a command against a private server. This is distinguishable in spirit from the read-oriented siblings (erlc_logs, erlc_players, erlc_bans), but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them or explains what class of 'command' is meant.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only contextual hint is 'Defaults to API v2', which hints at version selection but does not say when to choose v1 or when running a command is the right approach versus the other 16 sibling tools.

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