send_console_command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the auth need ('command access'), which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as possible side effects or output format. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and follows with a prerequisite. Every word earns its place, making it an appropriately sized description for a tool with only two parameters.

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 that this is a destructive tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the server_id parameter, what happens when the command runs, whether it is interactive, or indicate any failure modes. The prerequisite is helpful, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently without further assumptions.

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 the description must compensate, but it barely does. It mentions 'command' as the thing being sent, which adds a bit of context, but it does not explain the meaning or usage of the server_id parameter, nor does it provide syntax or format details. The schema's title 'Command' already covers the obvious, so the description adds little value.

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 states the action ('Send') and resource ('server-console command'), making the tool's purpose evident. It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings (e.g., file, backup, database tools), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires command access') which provides some context for when the tool can be used, but it does not offer guidance on when to prefer this tool versus alternatives like 'power' or 'server_details'. The usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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