power_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively warns about destructive actions ('off' and 'reset' are immediate and can cause data loss'), which is crucial behavioral information not evident from the schema alone. This goes beyond what the input schema provides about parameter constraints.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second provides critical warnings. Every word earns its place, and the warning is appropriately front-loaded.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by including critical warnings. However, it could benefit from mentioning what happens after execution (e.g., server state changes, response format) or prerequisites like authentication requirements, though the 'confirm' parameter partially addresses safety.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'off' and 'reset' actions in the warning, but doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what's in the schema's enum descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Control') and resource ('server power'), with specific actions listed. It distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which are primarily read-only 'get' operations or specific configuration tools, making this the only power management 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (for power control actions), and the WARNING implicitly suggests when not to use certain actions without proper caution. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites beyond the confirmation parameter.

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