request_rh_power_off

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond this by warning that it is destructive for running services and explaining that a ticket is created with status updates and correspondence sent to email. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and follow-up behavior.

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 core purpose, and each sentence carries useful information: the operation, its destructive nature, and the ticket/email follow-up. There is no wasted phrasing.

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 destructiveHint and full schema coverage, the description covers the main operational context well: what happens after invocation and where to find the result. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance about when to use it versus direct power-off tools, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 are fully described in the schema: id is the server ID and confirm must be true to execute. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline 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 names a specific action and resource: requesting manual server power-off via Remote Hands, and explicitly says it creates a Remote Hands ticket. It differentiates from direct power_off and other request_rh_* siblings by adding 'вручную' and the ticket-creation mechanism.

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 the use case: manual server shutdown handled by datacenter staff, as opposed to a software-level power_off. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over power_off or request_rh_reboot, leaving the routing decision mostly to the agent.

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