table_command

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds real value beyond them: server-side permission enforcement and script vetoes, plus a warning that processed_unverified is not a success acknowledgement. It still doesn't say what happens on veto/failure or how partial results surface.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and the prerequisite lead. The telegraphic phrasing of fields like processed_unverified is compact but slightly under-explained.

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?

No output schema and a freeform arguments bag make behavior hard to predict, and the description covers permissions and the processed_unverified trap but not timeout semantics, response_type options, or failure modes. Adequate, with clear remaining gaps for a destructive open-world 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?

Schema coverage is only 20% (only table_id is documented), so the description must compensate; it does partially by explaining that arguments carries protocol fields and that object ids must be current runtime ids. But command, response_type, and timeout_ms get no explanation of accepted values or effect.

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 ("Run a native TTCraft command from the catalog"), which is clearly distinct from commands_search and command_describe. It doesn't contrast itself with batch_execute, another likely-looking sibling, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ("Read command_describe first") and a constraint on argument contents (protocol fields, current runtime id). It provides no explicit 'when not to use' or guidance on when to prefer commands_search or batch_execute instead.

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