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

Despite having no annotations, the description fully discloses the disruptive and irreversible nature: 40-second unreachability, stream drop, MCP session teardown, data loss, and the mandatory confirm flag. This goes far beyond what the schema or annotations would tell an agent, making the risk profile crystal clear.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action is first, then the critical consequences, then the safe alternative, then the precise condition for useto. The length is justified for a high-stakes irreversible operation, and the structure front-loads the most important 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?

Given that this is a destructive reboot with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: consequences, prerequisites (confirm=true), alternatives, and the exact scenario in which it is appropriate. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call this tool safely.

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% and both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds the emphasis that confirm is required and has no default, but this is already implied by the required array and const:true. No significant new parameter meaning is added beyond 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 ('Reboot') and resource ('Android device'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools device_release and ios_reboot. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from close alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('only when the device itself is wedged and a human has asked for it'), when-not-to-use guidance ('Do NOT reach for this to recover from a flaky tool call'), and names the alternative (device_release) that should be tried first. No ambiguity remains.

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