Power Off Cube

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the operation is asynchronous, compute and host RAM are released, disk is preserved, and the resulting state is 'stopped.' This complements the annotations (non-destructive, idempotent) rather than contradicting them.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and asynchronous behavior, then states the key resource effects. There is no filler or redundant 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is complete: it covers the operation's purpose, async behavior, resource release, disk persistence, and final state. The schema fully documents parameters, and annotations cover idempotence and non-destructiveness.

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 input schema already explains cubeId and spaceId. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('power off'), a specific target ('a running Cube'), and an important qualifier ('asynchronous'). It also distinguishes itself from destructive alternatives like delete_cube by explicitly noting that disk is preserved and the Cube becomes stopped.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: on a running Cube when the intent is to release compute and host RAM while preserving disk and moving the Cube to a stopped state. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, but the state-transition language sufficiently separates it from wake_cube, restart_cube, and delete_cube.

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