power_on

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

Annotations already establish non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that this is an asynchronous operation and that the response will contain a callback key for check_task. This is valuable for the agent's invocation flow.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical async behavior is stated immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description provides the essential operational detail: async execution and a callback key for check_task. No critical missing information prevents correct invocation.

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 100%, so both id and confirm are already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Включить сервер' (turn on the server), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like power_off and reboot_server. The async note further clarifies what kind of call this is, making the purpose 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?

The context is clear: use this tool when you want to power on a server. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the verb and resource make the intended use obvious, so this is clear context without exclusions rather than merely implied usage.

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