poweroff_vps

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

The annotations only indicate this is not read-only and not marked destructive, but the description adds important operational context: no clean guest OS shutdown, equivalent to unplugging the machine. This goes beyond the structured annotation fields and helps an agent understand the risk profile.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by a clear alternative. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the operation's nature, the risk, and the graceful alternative. It lacks explicit mention of return values, but no output schema exists and the behavior is sufficiently clear for correct invocation.

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?

With only one parameter, vps_id, the schema's property name and title are sufficiently self-explanatory. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no additional parameter guidance, so the description itself adds nothing beyond the 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?

The description states the exact operation ('Hard power-off a VPS'), conveys the physical-world equivalent ('pulling the plug'), and distinguishes itself from stop_vps. There is no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool and which sibling to use instead: 'Use stop_vps for a graceful shutdown instead.' This gives an agent clear routing between poweroff_vps and stop_vps.

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