set_power

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

Annotations already indicate destructive write (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds detail about error handling, delay-only-for-cycle, resource_name selection, and ownership check, enriching the agent's understanding without contradicting 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 front-loaded and structured, but §11.14 references are cryptic and error handling is repeated. Still, each sentence adds value.

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?

With annotation and output schema existing, description covers all critical parameter semantics and behavioral rules; return value is handled by output schema. It explains prerequisites and error paths.

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 has 0% coverage, so description compensates fully: action values enumerated, delay semantics and constraints, resource_name behavior, and place context (acquired).

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 clearly states it drives power on/off/cycle on an acquired place and returns the resulting state. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling read-only get_power_state and other set_* tools.

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 implies usage on an acquired place and describes validation of action, but doesn't explicitly contrast with get_power_state or other alternatives. The ownership requirement is stated.

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