privileged-command

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the approval gate behavior, the three possible approval outcomes, and the secure handling of the sudo password via stdin. 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?

Three focused sentences, each earning its place. The core action is front-loaded, followed by approval-gate behavior and a security-relevant implementation detail with no wasted 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?

For a two-parameter tool with a destructive hint and no output schema, the description covers purpose, elevation, approval behavior, and password handling. It is slightly thin on expected return/output behavior, but that is not critical given the schema and annotations.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the profile's approvalPolicy controls prompt/allow/refusal behavior, which enriches the minimally documented 'profile' parameter.

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 and resource: 'Execute a command with sudo elevation.' The sudo qualifier clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like run-command or read-command, so an agent can tell its purpose without opening schemas.

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?

Provides clear context: it is for commands requiring sudo elevation and that go through the approval gate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the elevation context makes the intended use unambiguous.

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