xbox_power_off

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the two possible end states (off vs. standby/sleep), which goes beyond the name, but omits which is the default, whether authentication or a wake-capable config is required, and that power-off is disruptive/not trivially reversible.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and both outcomes front-loaded; every word 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 one-parameter, output-schemaless tool this is nearly sufficient, but the unresolved question of how standby vs. off is chosen, and the lack of any auth/reachability note, leaves a real gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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?

Only one optional parameter (ip) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing further about connection/discovery behavior, which is acceptable at baseline.

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 and resource ("Powers OFF an Xbox console") and clearly separates it from the sibling xbox_power_on. However, it leaves ambiguous how the off vs. standby outcome is selected, since no parameter exists for that choice.

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?

Usage is only implied by contrast with xbox_power_on; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, prerequisites (e.g., device must be reachable/authenticated), or when not to use it.

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