power_off

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the concrete consequence: it interrupts all services on the server. It also adds the async callback-key behavior for check_task, which annotations cannot express. This is substantial and accurate behavioral context.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action and warning, and each sentence carries useful information. 'eq/off' is slightly opaque, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, the destructive impact, the required confirmation, and the asynchronous response pattern. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 already covers both parameters completely (100% coverage), including the fact that confirm=true is mandatory and that the call is rejected without it. The description merely restates the confirm requirement and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 names the specific action and resource ('Выключить сервер') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling operations like power_on and reboot_server through the destructive label. The parenthetical 'eq/off' is mildly cryptic, but the core verb-resource pair is unmistakable.

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?

It states a hard precondition (confirm=true) and notes the operation is asynchronous, which helps an agent know how to invoke and handle it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as power_on or reboot_server or specify when one should be chosen instead, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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