shutdown_interface

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

The description adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly stating that apply requires confirmation and that preview mode is available. This helps the agent understand the two-phase workflow.

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?

The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks necessary parameter detail, which slightly reduces its overall utility for such a concise form.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the nested parameter structure, the description omits critical information about the confirmation field, the behavior of dry_run, and the required fields. It is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its parameters (dry_run, device_id, interface, confirmation). The tool description does not explain any parameter meaning, leaving agents to guess or rely solely on the schema structure, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's action: preview or apply interface shutdown. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_interface_status (read-only) and enable_interface (opposite action).

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 hints that apply requires explicit confirmation, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use preview vs apply, or how to safely test before applying. No coverage of preconditions or alternatives beyond siblings.

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