da_legacy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add useful context: json=yes is appended automatically, confirm is required for POST, and only certain command prefixes are accepted. It does not, however, disclose that this can execute arbitrary read/write server commands or describe the associated safety implications.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose and primary constraint, and organizes parameter guidance into a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Core invocation details are covered: accepted command formats, method, data handling, impersonation, and confirm requirement. The output schema covers return shape, and the remaining gap is minor—there is no guidance on discovering valid command names or when to prefer typed siblings.

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 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining every parameter: command with examples, method values, data as form fields, impersonate as optional user, and confirm as required for POST. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though method and data formats could be slightly more explicit.

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 specific action ('Call') and a precise resource class ('legacy CMD_API_* / CMD_* endpoint'), and reinforces it with concrete examples. The prefix restriction clearly separates this from higher-level API tools such as da_api.

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 'Only commands that start with CMD_API_ or CMD_' and the word 'legacy' imply this is for raw DirectAdmin command calls. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over modern typed siblings or da_api, nor does it warn against using it when a dedicated tool exists.

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