Apagar la Mac

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the 60-second wait, cancellation mechanism, blocking behavior leading to fallback_to_sleep after 2 minutes, and the requirement for user confirmation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is moderately sized (four sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds necessary context (delay, cancellation, fallback, confirmation). Could be slightly tightened but remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (delay, cancellation, fallback, blocking, confirmation), the description covers all operational aspects an agent needs to invoke it correctly. No output schema is present, but that's acceptable for a shutdown command.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the meaning of delay_minutes=0 and fallback_to_sleep. The description reinforces these but adds no net new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool shuts down the Mac normally, referencing the Apple Menu equivalent. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sleep, restart, and lock_screen by specifying the shutdown action and its behavior (wait, cancel, fallback).

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?

Explicitly instructs to confirm with the user unless explicitly requested, provides a concrete timeout (60 seconds minimum), and mentions cancellation via cancel_power_action. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance, though it doesn't contrast with sleep directly.

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