power_on

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the call incurs billing, out-of-stock triggers continuous background retry, and the return is immediate with a task ID rather than a completed power-on.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action and UUID, then adds the two most decision-relevant facts (billing, async retry/return). No filler.

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 for the returned task ID, so return shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the billing, retry, and async traits an agent needs; only an explicit pointer to the job-tracking siblings 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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It indicates the UUID selects the target instance but gives no format, source, or constraint details (e.g. where to obtain the UUID), so it only marginally compensates for the gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource: power on the instance identified by the given UUID. It also conveys scope (billing, async task creation). It does not explicitly name the sibling power_on_no_gpu, so the agent must infer which power-on variant to pick from the name 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the immediate task ID return signals an async workflow whose result must be polled (job_status/wait_for_job), but those alternatives are never named. No explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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