power_vps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the actions without explaining consequences (e.g., stopping causes downtime, reboot disrupts services) or prerequisite conditions. For a mutation tool, this lacks critical transparency beyond the schema's enum values.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The structure is optimal for a simple power-control tool.

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, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. However, the lack of annotations and explanation of side effects (e.g., what happens on stop/reboot) leaves gaps that could confuse an agent, especially without an output 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described ('VPS service id', 'Power action'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's enum values, so the baseline of 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 description clearly states the tool's function: 'Power-control a VPS: start, stop or reboot.' The compound verb 'power-control' is specific and the listed actions (start, stop, reboot) make the scope unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reinstall_vps or cancel_service.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever a VPS needs to be started, stopped, or rebooted. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention related tools (e.g., get_vps_status for checking state), but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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