request_rh_power_on

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context: it creates a Remote Hands ticket, status and correspondence live in the ticket, and a link is sent by email. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause adds useful information about the ticket workflow and notification behavior.

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 low-complexity tool with a fully documented schema, the description adequately explains the action, outcome, and follow-up channel. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that confirm must be true to execute or by contrasting with the plain power_on tool, but these are minor gaps.

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 the schema fully documents the id and confirm parameters. The description does not add extra parameter-level 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 verb and resource: it creates a Remote Hands ticket to manually power on a server. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like request_rh_power_off, request_rh_reboot, and request_rh_pxe_boot by naming the exact action.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when manual hands-on action by the data center shift is needed, and it explains the ticket-based workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as the regular power_on tool or state when not to use this tool.

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