Send console command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the online prerequisite; it does not say whether the command executes synchronously, whether its console output is returned (no output schema exists), whether arbitrary console commands can be destructive, or what permissions/API key scope is needed.

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, front-loaded with the action, and both earn their place. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 6-parameter mutation tool - a deficiency better scored under completeness.

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 6-parameter, annotation-free command-execution tool with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It says nothing about the return value (command output?), error behavior for offline servers, side effects of arbitrary commands, or how the inline key/panel overrides interact with the active panel.

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 67%, and the two undocumented parameters are the REQUIRED ones: server and command. The description adds nothing about their format or meaning beyond the phrase 'server's console'. The four optional panel/override parameters are described only in the schema, so the description contributes no semantic value over it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send a command to a running server's console.' This distinguishes it from siblings like server_console_tail (read logs) and server_power (lifecycle control) without naming them. Clear but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 prerequisite 'The server must be online' is useful and tells the agent a precondition. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus server_power for start/stop, or versus server_console_tail for observing output, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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