run_mqsc_json

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it can execute arbitrary MQSC, including delete/alter commands, names DELETE QLOCAL as an example, and cautions careful use. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded: purpose, safety warning, alternative guidance, then a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value; no filler or tautology.

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 destructive, general-purpose tool with 6 parameters, it covers the risk profile, alternatives, and all parameters; the output schema accounts for return values. Nothing essential prevents an agent from invoking it correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the Args section defines all six parameters with concrete examples: qmgr=QM1, command=display/define/alter/delete, qualifier=qlocal/channel/sub/topic, name supports wildcards, parameters as JSON object, response_parameters as attribute list. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('执行 MQSC 命令'), resource (MQSC commands), and key differentiator: returns JSON rather than text. This immediately distinguishes it from the sibling run_mqsc and the specialized list/get tools.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use it: for read-only queries, prefer list_queues/get_queue/list_channels etc., and warns it is destructive like run_mqsc. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose run_mqsc_json over run_mqsc, relying on the first sentence's JSON-differentiator.

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