impreza_vps_power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral differences between shutdown (graceful ACPI) and stop (hard power-off), and states that these actions take the server offline. This is valuable transparency, though it omits potential data loss risks from hard stop and authentication requirements.

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 purpose and followed by an important caution. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects of the tool. It explains the actions and provides a usage warning. However, it does not describe the return value, error conditions, or whether the operation is synchronous, which is a minor gap.

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 100% and both parameters are described, but the description adds context by clarifying the enum values (e.g., 'graceful ACPI' for shutdown, 'hard power-off' for stop) and specifying that service_id comes from impreza_list_services. This goes beyond the schema's brief 'Power action to perform.'

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 verb 'change' and the resource 'Proxmox VPS power state', and enumerates the four specific actions (start, shutdown, reboot, stop). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like impreza_vps_status or impreza_vps_reinstall by focusing exclusively on power state changes.

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 provides explicit guidance to confirm with the customer before using shutdown/stop, which is a key usage constraint. However, it does not specify when to use start vs reboot, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., no other tool handles power). The confirmation note earns a 4.

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