hcl_device_power

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (write, destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world); the description adds substantial non-structured context: the session-gating model, the specific error code returned without a session, and that power-off is deliberately unimplemented rather than guessed. It does not describe side effects on the device state or what the response contains, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the gating caveat, then the two behavioral constraints. Compact and free of filler, though the reStructuredText backtick markup adds noise without information.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the key unknowns an agent needs — the session prerequisite, the failure code, and the unsupported power-off path — are all present. The remaining gap is how to source a valid device id.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It meaningfully explains 'on' (default true, False unsupported) but says nothing about 'device' — notably that it is an integer identifier presumably obtained from hcl_list_devices, which is the one thing an agent most needs.

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: power on exactly one device via an observed backend verb. The '(gated)' qualifier signals a precondition rather than the operation itself. No sibling in the list offers device power control, so differentiation is implicit via the resource, but the description never explicitly contrasts with the stage_*/apply_* live-mutation family.

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 clearly states the prerequisite — an open session from hcl_backend_topology — and names the concrete failure mode (errorCode=228) for one-shot calls. It also tells the agent that on=False is unsupported and should not be attempted. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over plan/stage tools or when a live power action is appropriate.

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