nexterm_wake_entry

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

Annotations already declare that this is not a read-only, not idempotent, open-world operation that is nonetheless non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the packet is derived from the entry's stored WOL configuration, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about failure modes (missing MAC/WOL config, unreachable network) or what the caller gets back.

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 no filler; the effect and the resource come first. It is efficient but arguably too terse, since brevity here edges into underspecification rather than tightness.

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?

With one self-evident required parameter, an existing annotation set, and no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites (must WOL be enabled on the entry?) and about outcomes on success or failure. Adequate minimum-viable coverage for a simple action tool, not complete.

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 is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description only implicitly maps 'an entry' to entry_id and gives no format or constraint hints beyond the schema's integer/minimum 1. The parameter is largely self-evident from its name, so this is a moderate rather than severe gap.

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 effect ('Send Wake-on-LAN') on a specific resource ('an entry'), which is unambiguous and unlike any sibling tool in the list (the integration start/stop tools act on integrations, not WOL). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the nearest actions such as starting an integration entry.

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: the agent can infer this is the tool to use when it wants to power on a machine via WOL, and 'its configured WOL settings' hints at a precondition. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what to do if WOL is not configured for the entry, and no routing to alternatives.

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