mc_op

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the core action ('Give operator status') without mentioning any side effects, permissions required, persistence of the change, or potential risks. It offers no additional transparency beyond the bare function.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, stating the action and target immediately.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the core function, and sibling tool names provide additional context. However, it lacks any note about required permissions or server state, which would enhance completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters, including a descriptive text for 'player' ('The player name to make an operator'). The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Give') and resource ('operator status'), clearly identifying the tool's action. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings like mc_deop (which removes operator status) and mc_execute_as_op (which runs commands as an operator), so the purpose is 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 implies usage: use this to grant operator status to a player. However, it provides no explicit context on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., mc_execute_as_op) or any prerequisites. It is a basic functional statement with no exclusions or situational guidance.

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