power_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the important gating requirement ('opt-in and confirmation') and the disruptive nature of reboot/shutdown. Yet it is vague about what 'separate power-control opt-in' means and does not describe side effects, permissions, or irreversible consequences.

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 that efficiently communicates the core action and a critical precondition. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to understanding.

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 description is minimally adequate for a 3-parameter, destructive tool with no annotations. It names the actions and the opt-in/confirmation requirement, but it lacks detail on how to obtain the opt-in, what the confirmation means operationally, and what the tool returns. The output schema may cover return values, but the external opt-in process remains unexplained.

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 description should compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention any parameters. The schema itself provides useful enums and the confirmation constraint, but the description adds no value to parameter understanding beyond restating 'confirmation'.

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 specific action ('Reboot or shut down a Pi') and the resource type (Pi), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like control_service, run_command, and status tools. Even without naming siblings, an agent can reliably understand what this tool is for.

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 gives a clear context for use: power actions on a Pi. It also includes a strong precondition: 'only after a separate power-control opt-in and confirmation', which tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it.

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