power_on_vm

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens if VM is already powered on), authentication requirements, or whether the operation is synchronous. Only the action is named, lacking essential behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus two parameter lines. Every word is necessary; no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with clear argument documentation.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks context on behavior (error states, idempotency) and relationship to sibling tools. The output schema may supplement return info, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: hostname (with example) and vm_id (generic description). While not exhaustive, this provides more context than the bare schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Power on a virtual machine', which is a clear verb+resource pairing. The name itself is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces the action without ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like power_off_vm and read-only queries.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., power_off_vm) or any prerequisites. The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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