xbox_power_request

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses the important behavioral facts: the tool sends nothing to the device, it produces a question to be spoken aloud plus a token, and it enforces a conditional refusal at night. The 'sends nothing' claim is consistent with readOnlyHint=false because the tool still creates a pending request/token, so this is added context rather than a contradiction.

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 critical constraint (hand the token to xbox_power_confirm only on a clear yes) is front-loaded and the whole definition is three short sentences. The only waste is the near-duplication between 'Asks before wake or sleep' and 'Action: wake or sleep.'

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain the returned question or token fields, and it correctly focuses on flow and preconditions. Gaps are minor: it does not say what happens if the owner declines or how long a token remains valid, which matter for a confirmation-gated tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'action' parameter has no enum, so the description must carry the value space. 'Action: wake or sleep' supplies exactly the two permitted values, which the schema does not. It stops short of any format or casing detail, keeping it just under a 5.

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 definition establishes a specific verb and resource: it initiates a request for a power action ('wake or sleep') rather than performing it, and explicitly names the sibling it hands off to (xbox_power_confirm). The opening line 'Asks before wake or sleep' is terse on its own, but the second sentence disambiguates the two-step flow so an agent can distinguish it from the confirm tool.

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 states the call sequence (request first, confirm only after the owner's clear yes), the human-in-the-loop requirement, and a concrete exclusion: a night-time wake is refused unless the TV is already on. That is explicit when-to-use, when-not, and alternative-routing guidance rather than implied context.

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