manage_power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet for a mutation tool (add/remove) it discloses nothing about permissions, reversibility, or side effects on the schematic. The only behavioral hint is the boilerplate 'Dictionary with power data or error' return note.

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?

Well-structured with the purpose front-loaded, then Args and Returns blocks. Slightly boilerplate ('ctx: MCP context (optional)') but no meaningful waste for a 5-parameter tool.

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 needn't be re-explained, and the parameters are documented. However, an action-dispatch mutation tool with no annotations lacks the when-to-use and behavioral context an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it maps each parameter's role and the action-dependent requirements (power_net/position for 'add', power_symbol_uuid for 'remove', symbol_variant optional). It stops short of format details like position coordinate semantics or valid variant values.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Manage power symbols') and enumerates the supported actions (add, list, remove), which is scannable and unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the many sibling manage_* tools beyond the 'power symbols' resource.

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?

Usage is only implied through the per-action required-parameter notes (power_net/position for 'add', power_symbol_uuid for 'remove'). There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_components or add_component, nor any exclusions.

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