Run on Tailscale Compute

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: commands run non-interactively, the tool syncs the local project, and 'the command has the full permissions of the remote SSH user.' These details complement the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradiction.

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?

Four concise sentences each carry unique information: purpose, use cases, a warning to keep edits local, and the permission warning. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, output schema, annotations), the description covers the core workflow (sync and run), the intended use cases, and the security implications. It does not need to restate schema details, making it complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so the description adds minimal parameter-level value. The note about running 'non-interactive' commands is useful context but the schema already explains shell syntax for program/arguments.

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 uses specific verbs 'Sync' and 'run' with the resource 'Tailscale compute node', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool compute_status. It also enumerates use cases (builds, tests, benchmarks) that make the tool's 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 explicitly states 'Use it for builds, tests, benchmarks, and other costly work', giving the agent clear when-to-use guidance. While it does not mention when not to use it, the sibling tool compute_status is obviously for status checks, so the context is sufficient.

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