request_rh_power_off

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces that while adding new details: it creates a Remote Hands ticket, status and conversation live in the ticket, and a link arrives by email. This is valuable non-obvious behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences carry purpose, warning, and outcome with no filler. The destructive warning is front-loaded before the ticket-lifecycle detail.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, why it is dangerous, and what side effects to expect (ticket, email link). No critical calling information is missing.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The destructive warning indirectly justifies the confirm flag, but the description does not add explicit meaning beyond the schema for either id or confirm.

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 the verb, the resource (Remote Hands ticket to manually power off a server), and the effect, which separates it from sibling tools like request_rh_power_on or request_rh_reboot. It also identifies no ambiguity about what the action produces.

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?

It communicates clear context — a manual datacenter shutdown and a destructive warning — so an agent can tell when it might be relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as power_off or request_rh_reboot, nor when not to use it.

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