player_op

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the action, omitting whether the player must be online, whether permissions are required, whether the grant is persistent, or what response the tool returns.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the action and object clearly and packs all relevant information into a scannable format.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is mostly sufficient for selection and invocation. Yet with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral details like response format and prerequisites; sibling tools help disambiguate but do not fill that gap.

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 single 'player' parameter is self-descriptive and the description reinforces that it receives operator status. However, the schema has zero parameter documentation, and the description adds no format details such as username vs UUID, validation rules, or constraints.

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 the specific verb 'grant' with the resource 'operator status', clearly identifying the action. It stands in distinct contrast to siblings player_deop and ops_list, 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 verb 'grant' implies this is the tool to use when conferring operator privileges, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of exclusions versus alternatives. No context or prerequisites are provided beyond the basic action.

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