ssh_execute_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses remote mutation, non-idempotence, per-server policy failures, best-effort semantics, stopOnError interaction, strategy meaning, timeout, and cwd default. There is 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?

Four dense sentences front-load the primary action and return value, then add only high-value behavioral detail. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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 mutating group command with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers membership resolution, failure semantics, strategies, timeout, and cwd default. The only mild gap is an exact report format, but 'per-server success or failure report' is sufficient for invocation.

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%, but the description adds material behavior beyond the schema: group membership can exist through config alone, cwd defaults to default_dir, timeout is 30000 ms, and stopOnError only changes the best-effort abort behavior. It also clarifies how delay applies to the rolling strategy.

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?

Opens with 'Runs one command on every server belonging to the named group', naming a specific verb, target resource, and group scope. This clearly separates it from single-host tools like ssh_execute and from ssh_execute_sudo.

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 makes the intended context clear: group-wide execution over servers derived from ssh_group_manage or host config. It also explains best-effort failure handling, strategies, and stopOnError, but does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative such as single-server ssh_execute.

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