lakexpress_execute_command

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds behavioral details: it requires a confirmation safety gate, the command must come from a preview call, and it will fail if the binary is not installed. These details go beyond the annotations and provide actionable information about preconditions and execution flow.

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: state what it does, list the key requirement (confirmation), and specify the source of the command. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with 2 required parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, input constraints, and a failure condition. It could optionally mention what happens on successful execution (e.g., no output or side effects), but the destructiveHint annotation already signals state mutation, so this is adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the constraint that the command must be 'passed as-is without modification', which is not explicitly stated in the schema description. This adds value beyond the schema for the command parameter. The description also reiterates the safety gate role of confirmation, consistent with the schema.

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 executes a pre-built LakeXpress command and distinguishes it from lakexpress_preview_command by specifying that the command must come from a prior preview call. The verb 'Execute' and the resource 'LakeXpress command' are specific, and the sibling set reinforces the separation of concerns.

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 explicitly requires confirmation=true as a safety gate and mandates that the command string come from a prior lakexpress_preview_command call, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It also mentions a prerequisite (binary installed). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, though the sibling set makes the preview vs. execute distinction obvious.

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