Shut down PC

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns about the major side effect: 'Ends ALL remote control until someone is physically at the machine to turn it back on.' It also states the safety requirement 'Requires confirm: true.' It does not mention possible data loss, but the core irreversible consequence is transparently disclosed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded ('Schedule a full shutdown of this machine'), followed by the critical warning and the confirmation requirement. Every element earns its place.

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 high-impact, destructive action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core facts an agent needs: it schedules a full shutdown, has an irreversible remote-control consequence, and requires confirmation. It could additionally mention that cancel_shutdown can abort before the delay elapses, but that is already in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'Requires confirm: true,' which the schema already states. It adds no additional meaning for message or delaySeconds beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 and resource: 'Schedule a full shutdown of this machine.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like restart_pc by emphasizing that it ends ALL remote control until physical intervention, which clearly separates shutdown from reboot or cancellation.

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 severe consequence 'Ends ALL remote control until someone is physically at the machine' implies this should only be used when intentional and physical access is available. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over restart_pc or when not to use it, and the cancel_shutdown alternative is only mentioned in the schema parameter, not the description.

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