Run an FXServer console command

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

Annotations declare destructive/non-readonly, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the UDP RCON transport, the two required credentials (rcon_password on the server plus FIVEM_RCON_PASSWORD locally), and a server-side rate limit (~5 burst). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before firing a destructive command.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and transport, then reply semantics, then prerequisites. No filler, though the parenthetical command examples could be trimmed.

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 exists, yet the description explains that the reply carries the command's captured console output, and it covers auth, transport, and rate limiting. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the single command parameter, including the no-leading-slash rule. The description adds only the category examples of valid commands, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (command on the server console) and scopes it via the transport (UDP RCON) plus examples of what the console accepts. It clearly contrasts with the sibling client_command, which acts on the client rather than the server.

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 by enumerating command categories (ensure/stop/restart, convars, registered commands), but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like client_command, list_commands, or read_console. No explicit when-not guidance is given.

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