Configure console streaming

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral trait about performance overhead for 'all' mode, but does not explain the effects of 'status' or 'off' modes. This is moderate added value beyond 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds practical mode guidance without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity configuration tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and mode selection adequately. However, the 'status' mode remains ambiguous, and return values are not mentioned, leaving minor gaps.

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 provides a description for clientId, but mode lacks one. The description adds semantics for two of the four mode enums ('errors' and 'all'), partially compensating for the schema gap, but leaves 'status' and 'off' undefined. Overall, moderate parameter guidance.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Control') and resource ('live console forwarding'), and adds mode semantics that distinguish it from console-reading tools like get_console. It is unambiguous and informative.

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 provides concrete guidance on mode selection, noting that 'errors' mode limits to warnings/errors and 'all' mode can add overhead. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_console or list_clients, so exclusion guidance is absent but context is clear.

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