rubeus_tgssub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the SPN is replaced and requires the same service account, but it does not disclose whether the original ticket is modified or a new one is created, nor does it describe output format, error conditions, or side effects like pass-the-ticket behavior.

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 concise, with a clear one-line summary followed by a brief elaboration. It uses two paragraphs effectively without redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 description covers the main purpose and a key use case, but it lacks details about output (no output schema) and the implications of parameters like ptt, luid, and nowrap. Given the tool's complexity and zero annotations, the description should provide more context about behavior and return values.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all six parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, merely reiterating the concept of service name substitution. Since schema already documents parameters, baseline 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 states 'Substitute the service name in a service ticket' and explains it replaces the SPN in an existing TGS with a new service name. It clearly distinguishes itself from other Rubeus tools (e.g., asktgs, s4u) by focusing on ticket modification rather than acquisition or delegation.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you have a ticket for one service but need access to another on the same server, requiring the same service account. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the context makes the intended scenario evident.

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