run_command_as_admin

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

The description discloses key behaviors: UAC prompt on elevation, output format with JSON fields, and a warning about full administrative rights. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context beyond that, though it could detail the confirm_focus_disruption parameter's role.

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 highly concise: two sentences of purpose, then a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description covers the UAC trigger, output format, and a cautionary note. It includes a return type with JSON fields, which is helpful. However, it omits details about timeout behavior or error handling, leaving some gaps for a complex elevated command tool.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (command, timeout, confirm_focus_disruption), but the tool description only mentions 'command line and a timeout' in the Args section. While schema coverage is high, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond a quick summary.

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 runs a shell command with Administrator privileges, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'run_command' by specifying elevation. It includes details about UAC prompts and output capture, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use (when admin rights needed) but does not explicitly contrast with the non-admin sibling 'run_command'. It mentions UAC prompt behavior but no direct 'use this instead of run_command' guidance.

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