run_mqsc

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only; the description reinforces this by stating it can run modifications/deletions and advising caution. It adds valuable context that arbitrary commands are allowed and gives concrete harmful examples, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose, caution, usage guidance, then parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important safety information is front-loaded.

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 tool with only two simple parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides all essential guidance: what it does, how to invoke it, what risks exist, and when to choose a different tool. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema itself has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with an Args section defining qmgr and mqsc_command, including realistic examples for each. This is sufficient for two simple parameters, though no additional constraints or formats are specified.

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 action: executes a plain-text MQSC command against a specified queue manager. It provides concrete examples (DISPLAY, DELETE QLOCAL, STOP CHANNEL) and positions itself against dedicated query tools, making its role unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_queues/get_queue.

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?

It explicitly warns that arbitrary MQSC can be executed, including destructive commands, and tells the agent to prefer list_queues/get_queue when only querying is needed. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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