kvm_atx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does convey meaningful constraints: it requires the 'power' capability, demands confirm=true, and reports errors when ATX is unwired or the backend is TinyPilot. It does not, however, describe the consequences of each action or what the state action returns.

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?

One compact sentence that leads with the domain and packs prerequisites and known failure cases into a small space. The parenthetical '(power tier)' adds little, but overall the description is tight and readable.

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?

This tool has multiple potentially destructive actions, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions; a one-line description is not enough for an agent to know which action to choose or what to expect. It covers capability and error cases but omits semantics of the action enum, return behavior, and any sequencing caveats.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds meaning for one parameter (confirm=true) and leaves the five action enum values unexplained. The action semantics such as off_hard and reset_hard are not clarified beyond their names.

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 identifies the resource ('ATX power') and implies control through the schema's action enum, but it uses a noun phrase rather than a specific verb, so it doesn't directly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Control ATX power' or 'Query/set ATX power state'). It is enough to distinguish from input-focused siblings, but vague on its own.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, no alternatives are named, and there is no statement about when kvm_atx should be selected instead of kvm_status or other siblings. The only usage-like content is the prerequisite 'confirm=true' and the error conditions, which are behavioral constraints, not selection guidance.

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