Perform Server Power Action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is asynchronous and success is not guaranteed, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., server state), or potential errors.

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 with no wasted words; the purpose is front-loaded and the critical caveat about asynchronicity is provided immediately.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the purpose, actions, and a behavioral note. It could mention return value expectations, but this is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that the action is an IPMI power action and lists the same enum values, offering minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Perform') and resource ('IPMI power action on a server'), explicitly listing all five possible actions (power on, off, reset, soft shutdown, power cycle), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_server_boot_device.

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 implies usage for power actions and warns about asynchronous nature and lack of guaranteed success, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_server_boot_device or provision_server.

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