Set Interface Power

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by framing it as physical port power, analogous to plugging/unplugging, and by separating it from IOS shutdown semantics. It does not detail persistence or connectivity effects, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 front-loaded, direct, and free of wasted text. The example is compact and reinforces the intended usage without bloating the definition.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the key alternative. Return-value explanation is unnecessary because an output schema exists, and the main behavioral safety signals are handled by annotations.

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 67%: 'name' and 'port' are well described, but 'power_on' has no schema description. The description implies the enable/disable meaning and gives a disable example, but it does not explicitly map true/false to enable/disable. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 states a specific verb and resource: administratively enable or disable a port at the physical level. It also explicitly distinguishes this from IOS shutdown/no shutdown behavior, which helps the agent tell it apart from CLI-based siblings.

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?

It clearly says to use send_cli_command for IOS 'shutdown'/'no shutdown', providing an explicit alternative and condition. The physical-level port-power scope further distinguishes it from device-level power tools.

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