power

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — power-on may use network wake-up or Wake-on-LAN, implying the TV can be off/remote — but says nothing about latency, permission/pairing requirements, or side effects of powering off.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the mechanism as a brief parenthetical. No waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a mutation tool that powers a device on/off, the description omits pairing prerequisites and any note that a remote wake may fail or be delayed.

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 only 50%; the 'tv' parameter is documented in the schema but the required 'state' enum has no description there. The description's 'on or off' loosely mirrors the enum but adds no format, defaulting, or targeting guidance to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb (turn on/off) and resource (TV), plus the wake mechanism used. It is clearly distinguishable from volume/input/app siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The parenthetical 'network wake-up or Wake-on-LAN' hints at mechanism but not at when this tool is the right choice over e.g. get_status or pair_tv.

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