Питание сервера

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention that confirm: true is required, which is a meaningful safety constraint. However, it does not disclose the potentially destructive nature of hard-shutdown/hard-reboot, the irreversibility of actions, or any prerequisites or consequences, which is a notable gap given the tool's impact.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose, lists all actions, shows the HTTP endpoint, and states the confirm requirement. Every element is functional, with zero wasted words or redundancy.

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 (5 clear actions, 3 params, no output schema) and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: purpose, actions, endpoint, and confirm requirement. It lacks some nuance on operation effects (hard vs soft) but is otherwise complete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds value by specifying 'Требует confirm: true', clarifying that the confirm parameter must be set to true for the action to proceed. It also reveals the API endpoint pattern (POST /api/v1/servers/{id}/<action>), showing how parameters map to the request, which goes beyond the schema.

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 manages server power ('Управление питанием') and enumerates the specific actions (start, shutdown, reboot, hard-shutdown, hard-reboot). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like service_control (services) and server_diagnostics (diagnostics) by focusing solely on power operations.

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 tool's purpose is implied by the actions listed, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like service_control. It lacks any 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the action names and schema.

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