send_console_command

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

The annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency. The description adds genuine context beyond them: effects are arbitrary and depend on the command, and an environment feature flag (WISP_ALLOW_COMMANDS) must be enabled, so a call can fail on a configuration gate. It still omits what the tool returns and whether the command's output is captured, which matters for a tool with no output 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?

Two short sentences lead with the action, then the usage context, and then the prerequisite. There is no filler, and each clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 destructive, non-idempotent execution tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite gate and warns that effects vary. However, it does not state what comes back to the caller, whether the console output is returned, or what happens on failure. These omissions are tolerable but real, so the description is adequate rather than complete.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the default server_id behavior. The description's phrase 'one command' adds a real constraint: the command parameter takes a single command rather than a batch or sequence. That is the appropriate baseline of 3 and no more, because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Execute one command in the game-server console'. This clearly separates the tool from the file, backup, and database siblings. However, it does not name any sibling explicitly, and it also does not clarify how this tool differs from the 'power' sibling, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 phrase 'Use for explicit runtime administration commands' weakly implies usage that is not covered by the file-operation siblings. It does not name a single alternative or state a when-not-to-use condition; for example, power for start/stop or server_status for inspection. The WISP_ALLOW_COMMANDS prerequisite is a useful gating condition, but the guidance for choosing this tool remains implicit rather than explicit.

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