set_vm_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that poweroff is a force off and shutdown is graceful, which are important behavioral traits not deducible from the schema alone. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the actions are sufficiently characterized.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a compact argument list. Every word adds value, and the [control] tag might be slightly redundant but not harmful. No wasted text.

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?

Given its simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential: what the tool does and the parameter semantics. It lacks error handling details, but for a straightforward power control tool, it is sufficient.

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. It explains that 'name' should come from list_virtual_machines and gives explicit examples for 'action'. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states it powers a VM on/off and lists four specific actions (poweron, poweroff, shutdown, restart). The verb 'power' combined with the actions leaves no ambiguity. Among sibling tools, only set_vm_state handles VM power, so it is well-distinguished.

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?

The description implies usage by providing the VM name source (list_virtual_machines) and listing actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit but present.

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