Send a server command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important behavior that commands run with operator privileges, which warns about the power of this tool. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., server running), or what the return value will be, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with illustrative examples. Every element earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does without excess verbosity.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the action and the target. However, it does not explain what the agent should expect in return (e.g., execution confirmation, logs, or errors), which is a notable gap for a command execution tool. The operator privilege note partially mitigates this, but not fully.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (server and command) with 100% coverage. The description adds example command values but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Send' with the resource 'any console command to a Minehut server', which is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like minehut_start, minehut_stop, and minehut_status. The provision of concrete examples further reinforces the exact purpose.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for arbitrary console commands, and the examples show typical usage. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the sibling tool names (start, stop, restart, status, logs) imply those are alternatives for specific operations, providing clear context without formal exclusions.

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