shutdown_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'soft' shutdown, which suggests a graceful rather than forced termination, but doesn't explain what 'soft' means operationally, whether data is preserved, how long it takes, or what permissions are required. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - just 4 words - and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place: 'shutdown' (action), 'server' (resource), and '(soft)' (qualifier). There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 destructive server operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'soft' shutdown entails, what happens to running processes/data, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The context demands more complete disclosure.

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%, so the single parameter 'id' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'id' represents (server ID), what format it should have, or where to find it. This leaves the agent guessing about the parameter's meaning and source.

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 clearly states the action ('shutdown') and target resource ('a server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'power_off_server' or 'reboot_server' beyond the '(soft)' qualifier, which provides some distinction but not explicit comparison.

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 like 'power_off_server', 'reboot_server', or 'reset_server'. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for choosing this specific shutdown method.

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