Start, stop, restart, reload or validate a resource

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: reload republishes an edited resource to the running session, and validate runs the server's parser and Lua compiler without executing files. It also hints at the workflow (check log after). This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail behaviors for start/stop/restart or error scenarios.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds key action details and a follow-up step. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, which actions have special meaning, and how to observe results (via log tail). It doesn't mention prerequisites or return values, but given the simplicity and the enum-driven action parameter, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly indicates that 'name' refers to the resource and 'action' specifies the operation, and it explicitly elaborates on the actions reload and validate. However, it doesn't explicitly define start/stop/restart semantics or clarify that 'name' is the resource name, leaving some ambiguity. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema coverage but not fully.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Runs one resource action on the live server through Warden.' It specifies the verb (run), the object (resource action), and the context (live server, Warden). It further differentiates actions like reload and validate, and explicitly references the sibling tool open77_console_tail for reading logs, making its purpose distinct from other tools.

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 description provides clear context: it is used for resource actions on the live server, with reload as the typical step after an edit and validate for checking without running. It also instructs to read the log afterwards via open77_console_tail. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like open77_validate or provide exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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