mc_whitelist_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or behavior if the player is already whitelisted.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and complete schema coverage, but the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, reversal via mc_whitelist_remove) and usage guidance. It is minimally viable but not rich enough to fully inform an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'player' ('The player name to whitelist'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Add a player to the server whitelist' uses a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('player'), and target ('server whitelist'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mc_whitelist_remove and mc_op.

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 for adding players to the whitelist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mc_whitelist_remove or mc_op, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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