power

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the hardware prerequisite (ArkKVM ATX board wired to the mainboard) and the forcefulness of each action, including that power-long is a ~5 s hold producing a hard power off. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the host is already in the requested state.

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?

Purpose and hardware precondition are front-loaded, followed by a compact one-line-per-action breakdown. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 single-parameter hardware control tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: the hardware requirement, and the duration/effect of each action. Return values are appropriately left to the output schema.

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 supply the meaning of the single parameter, and it does: every enum value ('power-short', 'power-long', 'reset') is explained in terms of press duration and effect. That is real added meaning beyond the bare enum list in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Press the target's ATX buttons') and enumerates the three discrete actions with their physical semantics. This is clearly distinguished from keyboard-oriented siblings like press_keys or press_keys/type_text, since it operates on motherboard ATX headers rather than the input layer.

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?

Each enum value is mapped to an operator intent ('power on / ACPI shutdown', 'hard power off', 'reset'), so an agent knows which action to pick for a given goal. It gives no exclusions or named alternatives, however — notably it does not say when to prefer the sibling wake_on_lan for powering a machine on.

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