vm_power_off

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag, the reversibility note (power-on can restore state), and the fact that dry_run exercises a 'self-lockout guard'. It does not say whether the call blocks until the VM is off, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Extremely tight and front-loaded: risk tag, one-line purpose with reversibility, then a three-item Args block. No sentence is filler and the critical safety tag leads.

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 medium-risk write with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers purpose, all parameters, risk level, reversibility, and the dry-run guard. It omits whether the operation blocks/returns a task id and any permission requirements, which would matter for a mutating VM call.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does document all three parameters. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema: vm_ext_id points to the sibling that produces it (vm_list), dry_run explains the preview and the guard it triggers, and target explains the config lookup and the omit-for-default behavior.

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+resource ('Hard power off a VM') and the 'Hard' qualifier implicitly separates it from the graceful vm_guest_shutdown sibling. It also notes reversibility ('→ power-on'). However, it never names the alternative tool, so an agent must infer the graceful-vs-hard distinction rather than being told.

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 by the 'Hard' qualifier and the risk tag; there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over vm_guest_shutdown or vm_reboot, nor any stated preconditions. dry_run gives a preview path, which is useful but not a when-to-use rule.

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