request_rh_power_off

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: it is a manual datacenter action, it opens a Remote Hands ticket for the on-call shift, and status/correspondence live in the ticket with a link emailed. It does not cover timing/SLA or whether the server must be reachable first.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the destructive warning, with no 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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what triggers it, where the outcome is tracked, and the destructive consequence. It lacks only explicit routing guidance versus the self-service power_off sibling.

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% for both id and confirm, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about parameter format or values, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 off the server manually') and the channel ('Remote Hands request', jira/request_poff), which cleanly separates it from the self-service power_off and from sibling Remote Hands tools like request_rh_reboot and request_rh_power_on.

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 phrase 'manually' and the ticket-creation detail imply this is for cases where the datacenter on-call must physically act, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over power_off or request_rh_reboot. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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