ctrl_alt_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial value beyond them: the power_soft classification, the specific env gate required, the fact that the chord is unverifiable on a hung host, and that the typed act outcome should be confirmed with wait_for_state or snapshot.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its destructive nature, then layered with the gate requirement and alternative. Each sentence carries information, though the backticked formatting and gate discussion make it slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating that the tool returns the typed act outcome and by naming the confirmation tools (wait_for_state, snapshot). For a single-action destructive tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and verify the result.

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% and both parameters (confirm, profile) are already fully documented in the schema, including the elicitation semantics and the not_confirmed denial outcome. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: sending the Ctrl+Alt+Del chord to the managed host over HID, and immediately classifies it as a destructive reboot. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming power(action='reset') as the preferred alternative when out-of-band power exists.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: prefer power(action='reset') when the device has out-of-band power because that path is verifiable while this chord is not, since a hung host silently ignores it. It also states the required gate (KVM_PILOT_MCP_ALLOW_POWER) instead of the weaker HID gate.

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