Выключение сервера

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: the ACPI mechanism, analogy to pressing the power button, and that the OS gracefully terminates processes. It goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the alternative without any fluff. Every clause earns its place; it is concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the action, mechanism, and alternative. It could mention prerequisites like the server being running, but the graceful-shutdown context is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% description coverage: server_id is described as 'ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID сервера для выключения'. The description adds no additional parameter information, but the schema already fully documents the only parameter, so baseline 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 tool's action: 'Мягко выключает сервер через ACPI shutdown' (softly shuts down the server via ACPI shutdown). It specifies the method and differentiates from hard shutdown by referencing the ACPI power-button analogy, distinguishing it from siblings like hard_shutdown_server and reboot_server.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Для принудительного выключения используй hard-shutdown через /action API (не покрыто этим tool-ом)' — clearly tells when NOT to use this tool and directs to an alternative. The description also implies use for graceful shutdown when OS process termination is desired.

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