request_rh_power_on

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it creates a Remote Hands ticket for the datacenter on-call shift, that status/correspondence live in the ticket, and that a link is emailed. That is meaningful context a caller could not derive from the annotations.

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 tight sentences plus a parenthetical identifier; the core action leads and the ticket/link behavior follows. No filler, though the parenthetical jumps registry-style detail slightly ahead of the conversational flow.

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 ticket-creating tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what happens after invocation (ticket, status there, emailed link). It stops short of stating timing, permissions, or what to do if the request fails, but nothing essential to invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% ('Server ID', 'Must be true to run the operation'), so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or interpretation beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 on the server manually') and names the underlying mechanism ('Remote Hands request ... jira/request_pon'). This distinguishes it from the sibling power_on (automated API power) and request_rh_power_off by making the manual/Remote-Hands nature explicit.

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 implied by 'power on the server manually' and the Remote Hands framing, but the description never explicitly routes the agent between this and the sibling power_on, nor states prerequisites or when manual intervention is required. Context 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.