Power on Cloud Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description's '[WRITE]' tag merely repeats that. It discloses nothing beyond structured data about state transitions, idempotency (calling on an already-running server), timing/asynchronicity, or required auth scope.

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?

A single short line with the [WRITE] marker front-loaded, so there is no filler. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision, so it is only adequate.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the operation does to server state, expected outcome, and failure modes. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the result or side effects.

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%: region is documented in the schema while server_id has no description, and the tool description adds no meaning to either parameter. The endpoint path implies {region}/{id} mapping but gives no format guidance to compensate for the undocumented server_id.

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 name and title already state the verb+resource ('Power on Cloud Server'), and the description mostly restates that as an HTTP endpoint plus a [WRITE] marker. It conveys the operation is a write against an IaaS server, but adds no scope or differentiation from siblings like power_off_server or reboot_server beyond the obvious action word.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus power_off_server or reboot_server, no prerequisites (e.g. server must be stopped), and no notes on conditions that make the call fail. Usage can only be inferred from the tool name.

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