power_cycle_all

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that EVERY device reloads, that unsaved configuration on every router and switch is lost, and that there is no confirmation dialog. That is exactly the consequence-level detail an agent needs before firing a destructive bulk operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with the destructive consequence stated before the trailing return-value note; no wasted words and the most important warning is not buried.

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 zero-parameter, destructive bulk action with an output schema that covers return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, irreversibility, absence of a confirmation gate, and the response shape. Nothing material is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline of 4 for a no-param tool applies.

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+resource ('power cycle every device that is on') and pins the scope to on devices only, and it anchors the action to a known UI equivalent ('like the Power Cycle Devices button'), letting an agent distinguish it from per-device power tools like set_power.

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 implies the trigger (all on devices, bulk reload) and even explains the difference from the GUI button's confirmation dialog, but it never names an alternative tool such as set_power for granular control or states when-not to use this bulk action. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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