電源オフ

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description is partially relieved of that burden. It adds the nuance that 'power off' means entering standby rather than cutting power entirely, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as whether a pairing/session is lost or if further commands become unavailable.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and every character earns its place, making it highly efficient for such a simple command.

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 low-complexity tool with a fully documented schema and a destructive annotation, the description is nearly complete. It could strengthen completeness by explicitly stating that the tool is idempotent or that standby differs from hard power-off, but those are minor omissions given the simple nature of the action.

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?

The only parameter, device, has 100% schema description coverage, including its default resolution order. The description adds no additional meaning to this parameter, so a 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?

The Japanese description 'TV の電源を切る（スタンバイ）' clearly states the action: turning off the TV and putting it in standby. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling tool power_on.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like power_on or get_power_state. While the context of siblings implies usage, the description itself provides none, leaving it to the agent to infer.

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