execute_command_async

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly conveys the asynchronous/non-blocking nature and that a command ID is returned, but says nothing about the approvalId workflow for destructive operations, what happens if the command exceeds timeoutMs, or whether the process survives client disconnection. For a remote command-execution tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the immediate-return semantics, with the polling hint appended. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

This is an 8-parameter, mutation-capable tool with a nested env object, an approval gate, two enum-constrained params, and no output schema and no annotations. A single sentence cannot cover the approval flow, timeout semantics, or backend selection, so an agent would have to open the schema to call it safely.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters; cwd, env, backend, command and timeoutMs are all undocumented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about any of them. The approvalId parameter in particular ('Approval ID issued for a previously requested destructive operation') signals a safety workflow that the description never mentions. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 and resource ('Start a command in the guest') plus the key behavioral differentiator 'return immediately with a command ID', which implicitly separates it from the synchronous execute_command sibling. It does not explicitly name execute_command or wait_for_command as the contrasting alternatives, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 parenthetical 'poll with get_command_status' gives a concrete follow-up path, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to pick this over the synchronous execute_command, nor any prerequisites (approval requirements, shell availability on the guest).

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