Power On Server

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

Annotations already indicate mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and potentially destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as prerequisites, side effects, or behavior if server is already running. No contradiction with annotations, but insufficient transparency beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly lacking in detail for full clarity.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, but lacks context on idempotency (idempotentHint=false), preconditions, and error handling. With sibling tools like hetzner_reboot and hetzner_reset, more distinction would be helpful.

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% with the parameter 'id' described as 'Server ID'. The description does not add additional meaning or clarification beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Start a stopped server by powering it on' clearly states the action (power on) and the target resource (stopped server). It distinguishes itself from siblings like hetzner_power_off, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from hetzner_reboot or hetzner_shutdown.

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 implies use when a server is stopped, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like hetzner_reboot or hetzner_reset. No when-not-to-use or context hints are given.

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