Принудительное выключение сервера

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: data in RAM and unfinished writes will be lost. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint: false, which directly contradicts this warning. This is an annotation contradiction because the tool is described as destructive in terms of data loss while the annotation claims it is not destructive.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and method, the second adds usage caution and risk. No wasted words, fully front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and risk. However, the contradiction with destructiveHint reduces overall reliability, so it is not a 5. The description is otherwise complete for this context.

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 has full coverage (100%) for the single required parameter server_id, which is described as 'ID сервера для принудительного выключения'. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Принудительно выключает сервер (reset power)' (forcibly turns off the server), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like shutdown_server and hard_reboot_server by emphasizing the 'reset power' nature and emergency use case.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Использовать только если мягкий shutdown_server завис или не реагирует' (use only if soft shutdown_server is hung or unresponsive). It also names the alternative (shutdown_server) and warns about data loss, providing clear guidance on usage conditions.

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