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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While the action names imply state changes, the description does not mention that stopping/rebooting will interrupt services, potentially cause data loss, or require appropriate permissions. The agent is left without warning about the destructive nature of these operations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the actions. There is zero redundancy, and every word 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 simple power-control tool, the description covers the core action but omits crucial context: it does not mention that service_id is required to identify the target VPS (despite the schema marking it optional, logically it should be provided). No output schema exists, so return format is not specified, but the description also fails to note whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous or what happens on success/failure. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 50%: service_id is well-documented in the schema, but action has no schema description. The tool description partially compensates by listing the enum values (start, stop, reboot), which adds clarity to the action parameter. However, it does not elaborate on service_id beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Power-control') and names the resource (VPS) and lists the exact actions (start, stop, reboot). It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from any sibling tool; no other tool appears to handle power operations.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: whenever a VPS needs to be started, stopped, or rebooted. There are no direct alternative tools for this action, so no exclusions are necessary. The usage context is implied strongly by the action list.

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