power_off

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial value beyond them: it spells out the consequence ('interrupts all services'), the mandatory confirmation gate, and the async nature with a callback key for check_task. This tells the agent exactly what will be destroyed and how to follow up.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the destructive warning. Every clause carries actionable information (API op, destructiveness, confirmation requirement, async follow-up) with zero filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the confirmation prerequisite, and the asynchronous follow-up mechanism via check_task. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and handle the response.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema (id as Server ID, confirm as required). The description reinforces that confirm=true is mandatory but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Power off a server') with the underlying API operation '(eq/off)'. The action is clearly distinct from siblings like power_on, reboot_server, and request_rh_power_off without needing to open their schemas.

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 supplies useful prerequisites ('Requires confirm=true') and a strong warning that it 'interrupts all services', which implicitly steers the agent away from casual use. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives such as reboot_server or power_on, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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