control_server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes well beyond: it explains that stopping the Admin Server kills the REST API this very tool depends on, that the action cannot be undone through this tool, and that a break-glass token may be required with a strong 'never guess it' warning. This is rich, safety-critical context not derivable from 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?

Tight, front-loaded prose: verb/resource first, then action semantics, then the destructive confirm scenario, then the token caveat. No filler.

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?

No output schema, but given the mutation and risk profile the description covers the decision-critical facts: action choices, irreversibility, required confirmation, and conditional human-supplied token. An agent has everything needed to choose and invoke safely.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It defines the valid action values with nuance, ties confirm to the Admin Server shutdown case, and explains the token's human-operator origin. server_name is unsurprisingly self-evident, and defaults are visible in the schema.

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?

Title and description state a specific verb (start/stop) and resource (WebLogic server via Node Manager), clearly distinguishing it from read-only siblings like list_servers and get_server_health.

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 describes each action mode and when to use each – 'force_shutdown' is called out as the remedy for a wedged server, and the shutdown-of-Administration-Server scenario is flagged with its required confirm and irreversibility.

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