Add To Allowlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates that a player is added. It says nothing about whether the change takes effect immediately or after a restart, whether the server must be running, what permissions are required, or whether it fails on a duplicate entry. The only real disclosure, that XUID is optional, is already in the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the ignoresPlayerLimit semantics, server targeting, and the effect/outcome of the operation entirely to inference.

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 50%: name and xuid are documented in the schema, and the description merely restates them. The two undocumented parameters, server_name and ignoresPlayerLimit, get no explanation here—notably ignoresPlayerLimit, whose meaning (bypassing the player cap) is non-obvious and unaddressed.

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 names a concrete verb ("Add") and resource ("player... to the server allowlist"), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close siblings get_allowlist or remove_from_allowlist, though the add/remove distinction is largely self-evident.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the existence of get_allowlist and remove_from_allowlist.

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