hcloud_server_power

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the danger profile is known. The description earns credit for disclosing the polling behavior ('polls the resulting action by default'), which is real operational context absent from the schema. It stops short of saying what happens on failure, that reset/poweroff cause immediate downtime, or what a polled call 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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, with the operation scope front-loaded. The parenthetical enum list is somewhat redundant with the schema, which is the only minor waste.

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 destructive mutation with 0% parameter documentation, no output schema, and five near-identical siblings, the description omits the two things an agent most needs: why to pick this over the per-op tools, and what wait actually changes. Annotations cover safety, but the routing and parameter gaps are substantial.

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 carries the full burden, and it mostly does not. Listing the op values just duplicates the enum already in the schema; 'id' is never explained; and 'wait' is only obliquely implied by 'polls by default' rather than stated as the flag that controls blocking versus returning the action immediately.

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?

States a specific verb (run a power operation) and resource (server) and enumerates the five supported ops, so the action space is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the five dedicated sibling tools (hcloud_server_poweron_action, hcloud_server_poweroff_action, hcloud_server_reboot_action, hcloud_server_shutdown_action, hcloud_server_reset_action), leaving the agent unable to tell why this wrapper exists alongside them.

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 guidance on when to use this composite tool versus the single-op siblings that cover every one of its enum values. The one usage-relevant statement ('polls the resulting action by default') implies the wait parameter but never says when to set wait=false or that a non-waiting variant exists.

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