power

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies mutation via the verbs. It does not disclose whether restart causes downtime, whether the operation is asynchronous, how failures are surfaced, or that only certain server states permit each action.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: no return value, no async/downtime behavior, no precondition on server state. The permission scope is the only supplementary detail provided.

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 coverage is only 50%: id has a documentation string, while action is a bare enum with no description. The description adds nothing about either parameter (e.g., what srv- vs sh- ids mean beyond the schema, or restart semantics), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Starts with a concrete verb set (start/stop/restart) and an explicit resource (a server), so the action is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with siblings such as create_server, delete_server, or resize_server, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

"Scope servers:power" states the required permission scope, not when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no guidance on when to use power vs. delete_server/create_server, nor any prerequisite or state conditions (e.g., server must be stopped before delete).

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