Send power action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It labels the tool as sending a 'signal' but never says that stop may be graceful while kill is abrupt and potentially data-destructive, nor whether actions are reversible or require confirmation. For a mutation tool with a 'kill' option this is a meaningful gap.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the option list immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though there is little structure to speak of.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an enum containing a destructive 'kill' option, the description should explain effects and risk. It instead stops at naming the tool, which is not enough for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 coverage is 67%, so the description should add meaning. It only restates the 'signal' enum already in the schema and says nothing about the semantics of each value or about the undocumented 'server' parameter, leaving the reader no better informed than the raw schema.

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 ('send a power signal') and resource ('a server') and enumerates the four signals. It distinguishes itself from console-style tools implicitly, though it never names a sibling such as server_command or server_reinstall to draw the line 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?

There is no guidance on when to use each signal versus the others, no mention of prerequisites or required permissions, and no indication of which sibling tool to prefer for non-power actions. The agent must infer everything about selection.

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