power_on

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call is asynchronous and the response carries a callback key to be polled via check_task. It stops short of saying how long the operation takes or what the callback key looks like.

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?

Two terse sentences, action and async follow-up front-loaded, zero filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the annotations cannot: the async nature and the check_task polling path. Only minor gaps remain (server-state preconditions, rough operation latency).

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 (id, confirm) are already documented in the schema, including the confirm=true rejection rule. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Power on a server') with the underlying API action (eq/on), which clearly separates it from power_off and reboot_server. It does not, however, disambiguate against the other power-related siblings in the list (request_rh_power_on, port_on), which an agent can only resolve by opening the other 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?

Usage is only implied: the async note tells the agent it must follow up with check_task, but there is no statement of when to choose this over reboot_server, request_rh_power_on, or port_on, nor any preconditions (e.g. server state) for calling it.

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