hmc_power_on_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is job-based and explains that wait=True blocks until a terminal state, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention permissions or edge cases, but the core async behavior is transparent.

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 and well-structured, with a clear topic sentence followed by parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description doesn't explain poll_interval and timeout_seconds or how they relate to wait. This is a notable gap for a tool with four parameters and no annotations, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The description adds meaning to system_name_or_uuid (accepts SystemName or UUID, find via hmc_systems) and wait (block until terminal state). However, poll_interval and timeout_seconds are left unexplained, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Power on a managed system') and identifies it as a 'PowerOn job'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hmc_power_on_lpar and hmc_power_off_system, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides helpful context by telling users to find the system name or UUID with hmc_systems and explains when to use the wait parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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