power_on_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Power on a server' implies a state-changing operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether it's destructive (e.g., could cause data loss), rate limits, expected response, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, though the brevity contributes to information gaps in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meaning, or expected outcomes. Given the complexity of server power management, this leaves critical gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'id'. The agent must guess what 'id' represents (server ID, numeric identifier) without any context about format, constraints, or where to obtain it. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Power on a server' clearly states the action (power on) and the resource (server), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'power_off_server' and 'reboot_server' by specifying the power state change direction. However, it doesn't specify what 'power on' entails in this context (e.g., booting from a powered-off state).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be powered off), when not to use it (e.g., if server is already running), or how it differs from similar tools like 'reboot_server' or 'reset_server'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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