redfish_power_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that power control is a state-changing, potentially disruptive operation that may require elevated privileges. No warnings about system impact, reversibility, or authentication are given, making it dangerously opaque for a control action.

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 short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. No structural elements like lists, examples, or warnings exist. It does not earn its single sentence because it conveys almost no useful information beyond what the tool name already implies.

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?

The tool is a power control operation with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters. The description is insufficient for an agent to know what actions are possible, what the side effects are, or what to expect in response. It fails to complete the full picture needed for safe and correct invocation.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to either 'action' or 'system_id'. It does not hint at valid action values (e.g., on/off/restart) or the format of system_id, so the agent is left without critical parameter context that the schema also fails to provide.

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 'Control system power state' uses a clear verb and resource, and it obviously relates to power management, differentiating it from the sibling get_* tools. However, 'control' is vague—it doesn't specify whether this turns power on/off, reboots, or performs other actions, so it lacks the precision needed to fully distinguish it from potential power-related variants.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list is mostly read-only information tools, and this is one of the few control tools, but the description doesn't state prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives such as redfish_configure. The intended use case is only implied by the tool's name and vague description.

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