hcloud_server_shutdown_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds a non-obvious caveat that annotations cannot express: the returned `action` status only reflects that the request was sent, not that the shutdown succeeded. This directly prevents a false success interpretation and is exactly the kind of extra context the lower bar for annotated tools is meant to reward.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its mechanism, then the failure caveat, then the alternative. Each sentence contributes distinct information and none restates the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the one thing an agent most needs to know about the result: the action status is not a shutdown guarantee. The only residual gap is return-shape/polling detail, which is partially covered by the `wait` parameter description in the schema.

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 100%, so `id` and `wait` (poll until success/error or timeout) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, including the notable `wait` polling behavior, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Shutdown a Server') with the mechanism named: an ACPI shutdown request. It also distinguishes itself from hcloud_server_poweroff_action by describing the graceful vs. forced semantics, so an agent can pick between the two without reading schemas.

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?

States the precondition (the OS must support and react to ACPI) and gives an explicit routing rule: 'If you need to ensure that the server is off, use the `poweroff` action.' That is a when-to-use-this vs. when-to-use-alternative statement, not an inference.

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