set_power

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description earns additional credit by disclosing the concrete destructive consequence: unsaved configuration is lost unless written with 'write memory'. It also states the post-condition that IOS devices return to the prompt, which is behavior neither the annotations nor the schema convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then escalating to the risk and the recovery state. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 two-parameter, output-schema-backed tool, the description covers the action, the hazard, and the resulting state. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, leaving no meaningful gap.

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 both the 'on' boolean and the 'device' name are already fully documented. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 ('Switch a device on or off') with unambiguous scope for a single device. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with power_cycle_all, which is the nearest alternative.

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 implied by the description of what happens when a router or switch is switched off and on, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to the sibling power_cycle_all that would select between them. An agent must infer the routing decision itself.

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