power

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 context the annotations cannot carry: the gating/approval flow, the typed outcome on denial, the tri-state verified effect report with null-plus-reason when no trustworthy power signal exists, and the generation-bump invalidation of prior snapshot frame refs. That last item is a non-obvious side effect an agent must know before calling.

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?

The purpose and the DESTRUCTIVE warning are correctly front-loaded in the first two lines. The remainder is information-dense but slightly cluttered by parenthetical issue references (#234, #168) and backtick-laden identifiers, which cost a little readability without adding agent-relevant meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers what an agent needs to know: the approval/denial outcome model, the shape and tri-state nature of the effect report, and the snapshot-ref invalidation side effect. Nothing material for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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%, so action, confirm and profile are already fully documented (including the enum's "use wake for Wake-on-LAN" pointer). The description reinforces the confirm/elicitation semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Change host power state") and flags destructiveness up front, which cleanly separates it from the read-only sibling power_state. It stops short of naming power_state/wake as the alternatives, so the agent must infer the read-vs-write split from sibling names alone.

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?

Explains the approval path in detail (power effect gate, elicitation vs confirm=true, denial returns outcome=not_confirmed), which tells the agent how a call will be mediated. It never says when to prefer this over wake or power_state, so the selection guidance is only implied by the verb.

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