power_off

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that running tasks are interrupted (what is destroyed), that pending power-on retries are cancelled first, and critically that the call returns an acceptance result rather than the final state (async semantics). That async note is exactly the kind of behavior the annotations cannot express.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence led by the verb, with no filler. The two parenthetical clauses are dense but each carries distinct information (task interruption and the retry-cancellation side effect).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description usefully clarifies the async acceptance semantics. For a destructive one-parameter mutation it covers the important behavioral edges, with the only gap being no explicit sibling routing.

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% and the single instance_uuid parameter is left unexplained by the description. The parameter name is fairly self-evident, so this reaches the minimum-viable bar, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation (e.g. format or where the UUID comes from).

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 (关机/power off) and adds the crucial scope that it interrupts running tasks on the instance. It also contrasts behavior with the power-on path by noting it cancels boot retries, which helps against power_on/power_on_no_gpu, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The description describes what happens on invocation but gives no guidance on when to choose power_off versus siblings like switch_mode or cancel_job, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage must be inferred.

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