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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true, but the description discloses the real behavioral traits: what 'hard' actually does ('cuts power ... like pulling the plug'), the risk ordering, and that there is brief downtime. That is meaningful context beyond the annotation.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: action, mode semantics with risk warning, then the underlying API endpoints. No filler and the risk-relevant warning is front-loaded before the endpoint detail.

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?

A simple, single-target mutation with full parameter documentation and a clear risk statement — nothing essential is missing. The only omission is that no guidance is given about the resulting instance state or how to confirm the reboot took effect, though with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 100%, so a 3 baseline applies, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema's terse 'soft (default) or hard.' by explaining the operational difference between the two modes. Region and instance_id are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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 ('Reboot one instance') and immediately distinguishes the two modes. An agent can tell it apart from civo_start_instance / civo_stop_instance without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: soft is the default, hard should be used 'only when soft does not work.' It does not contrast against the neighboring lifecycle tools (start/stop), but the mode-selection guidance is unambiguous.

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