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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is to add consequence detail, which it does: remote connectivity and active jobs become unavailable until the device wakes. This is real, decision-relevant behavior not captured by the annotations. It stops short of stating whether unsaved work is at risk or how to wake the device.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the caveat following. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the key side-effect warning for a destructive operation. The remaining gap is routing among sibling power tools, which is the main thing an agent still has to work out.

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 description coverage is 100%, documenting the required device id and the 0-90 second delay bound, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but is baseline rather than value-add.

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 ('put the paired computer into system sleep mode'), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the closely related siblings power_shutdown, power_lock, or power_restart, so an agent must infer which power tool applies.

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?

'when explicitly requested' implies a usage precondition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer sleep over lock, shutdown, or restart, and no exclusion rules. The usage context is present but thin for a family of five similar power tools.

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