power_on_no_gpu

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: billing continues despite no GPU, the call returns a background job ID immediately (async), and the instance must be powered off first. These are exactly the side effects and timing semantics 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?

Dense and front-loaded: the mode and billing caveat come first, then eligibility, then the async-return fact, then the precondition. Every clause earns its place, though the negation clause could be tightened slightly.

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 spelled out; the description nonetheless signals the immediate background-job-ID return. With eligibility, billing, precondition, and async behavior covered, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single instance_uuid parameter, so the description technically adds no parameter-level detail. However the parameter is a single, self-evidently named required identifier, so the practical gap is small; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+mode: power on in no-GPU mode. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the plain power_on sibling by scoping to 无卡模式 and clarifying that it will not switch an already-running GPU instance, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit eligibility (仅支持按量计费实例) and an explicit when-not plus precondition (不会自动将已运行的 GPU 实例切换为无卡模式，请先关机并确认状态). This is precisely the routing/precondition information an agent needs before choosing between this and power_on/switch_mode.

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