Run console commands

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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description explains that commands run as an operator can change the live world, players, and server; names example commands; notes ordering; says to omit the slash; states audit logging; and clarifies that output is server text to be treated as data, not instructions.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: purpose, scope, examples, permission, safety guidance, logging, and output handling appear in a compact sequence. Every sentence adds practical information.

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 command-execution tool with no output schema, the description supplies permissions, behavior, safety warnings, syntax guidance, logging, and output interpretation. An agent has enough context to invoke it responsibly.

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 schema already documents the commands array with examples, but the description adds useful operational semantics: commands run in order, should omit the leading slash, and can include plugin commands. It does not mention the schema's max of 16 commands.

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 states a precise verb and resource: running console commands as the server console, in order, returning each command's output. It distinguishes itself from more specific sibling tools by saying to prefer those when one exists.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: prefer a specific tool when available, use search_commands to find exact syntax first, and confirm destructive actions with the user. It also names the required permission, server:console.

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