hmc_power_off_system

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, so the agent already knows this is destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions the PowerOff job, explains that immediate skips graceful shutdown, and clarifies that wait blocks for terminal state. It does not detail side effects on running LPARs or error conditions, but the provided context is meaningful and consistent.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences with the core action first. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has a destructive action and an output schema, but the description does not cover what happens to running LPARs or the system's state after the job, nor does it elaborate on the job lifecycle beyond 'terminal state'. Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described, but for a power-off operation, more context on consequences would improve completeness. It is sufficient but not fully thorough.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It explains system_name_or_uuid (accepts SystemName or UUID) and wait (block until terminal state), and implies immediate behavior via 'immediate skips graceful shutdown'. However, poll_interval and timeout_seconds are not explained, leaving a gap. The parameter names themselves are somewhat self-explanatory, so the partial coverage earns a 3.

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 identifies the action: 'Power off a managed system (PowerOff job).' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hmc_power_off_lpar or hmc_power_on_system. The mention of 'immediate skips graceful shutdown' further clarifies a key variant of the operation.

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 provides some usage guidance, such as setting wait=True to block for terminal state, but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like hmc_power_off_lpar or hmc_power_on_system. The sibling list implies a distinction between system and LPAR power operations, but the description itself does not state when to use this versus those alternatives, so it is minimally adequate.

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