player_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the action types but does not explain consequences, reversibility, required permissions, RCON availability, or what happens after the action is performed. For potentially disruptive operations like ban and mute, this is a notable 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the operation, target, method, and supported actions compactly, and every word contributes meaning.

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 simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can determine what to call and with what arguments. However, because there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, the lack of information about execution results, side effects, and administrative requirements leaves clear gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including an enum for 'action' and a clear definition for 'player'. The description adds RCON context but does not clarify player ID formats, whether the player name must be exact, or how action-specific requirements might differ.

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 specific action ('Perform a quick RCON action'), a target ('a player'), and enumerates the exact operation types ('kick, ban, mute'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from the broader server-management siblings.

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 word 'quick' implies this is for lightweight, direct player actions, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools or exclusion conditions are mentioned, so usage guidance 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.