set_power_state

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists supported reset types but does not warn about destructive effects (ForceOff, ForceRestart), potential data loss, or prerequisites for graceful operations. This is a safety-relevant tool, so the omission is significant.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The list of reset types is concise, though duplicated in schema, but its placement in the description enables quick agent scanning without parameter lookup.

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 power-control tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks safety warnings, expected outcomes, and any mention of when to use which reset type (beyond the schema's one-line meanings). It is not complete enough for an agent to safely invoke this tool without additional context.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, including enum value explanations. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the enum list, which is redundant but not harmful.

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?

States a clear verb ('Change') and resource ('power state of a computer system'), with a specific list of supported reset types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reset_manager, which targets manager resources.

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?

Provides clear context: it is for computer systems and enumerates valid reset types. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions (e.g., 'use reset_manager for manager power') or alternative tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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