issue_console_command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is known. '(gated write)' adds real context about the approval gate, but the description does not say what an arbitrary operator command can affect or how responses are collected if collectKey is omitted. Notably, all three examples are display ('D ...') commands, which can understate the destructive capability the annotations flag.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the examples trailing as supporting detail. No wasted words.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the gating concept but not the response-collection workflow (collectKey) or the MVS-vs-IMS vs get_console_messages routing. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to resolve from the schema alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (including collectKey, consoleName, environment) is already documented in the schema. The description's examples coincide with the schema's own example for `command` and add no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Issue'), a specific resource ('MVS system/operator command'), and the mechanism ('extended MCS console'), plus three concrete command examples. An agent can distinguish this from get_console_messages (read) and ims_command (IMS) without opening a schema.

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 command examples imply when this is appropriate, and '(gated write)' hints at an approval prerequisite, but the description never names an alternative (e.g., get_console_messages for reading, ims_command for IMS) or states exclusions. Usage guidance is suggested rather than stated.

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