power_on

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

The description discloses only the basic state change and adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as boot delay, already-on behavior, or confirmation of success. The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructive intent, so the description adds little transparency value.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that contains exactly the necessary information and no filler.

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 simple, parameterless power-toggle command with annotations covering idempotency and non-destructive behavior, the description is largely complete. It could add a note on how to confirm the power-on result, but that is not essential for such a direct action.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. This matches the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool.

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?

“Allume le Denon AVR” uses a direct verb and names the exact resource, so the intended action is unmistakable. It clearly conveys the on/off semantics that separate it from power_off, though it does not explicitly call out sibling tools.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when the Denon AVR should be powered on. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer power_off, get_status, or set_input.

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