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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully adds that the reboot is graceful via ACPI, which distinguishes it from a hard power cycle. However, it omits real behavioral consequences such as service interruption, whether the call is asynchronous and returns an action object, and whether it blocks until the server is back.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and its graceful nature before the API endpoint detail. Every clause carries 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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action and mechanism but leaves the async/action-response behavior and the relationship to sibling lifecycle tools unstated. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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% with a single required server_id documented as 'The server to reboot.' The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool whose schema already does the work.

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 a server') and adds mechanism detail ('gracefully via ACPI') plus the underlying API endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-siblings like hetzner_shutdown_server or hetzner_poweron_server, so an agent must still infer the distinction.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given, even though the sibling list contains hetzner_shutdown_server and hetzner_poweron_server, which are the obvious competing actions. The agent must choose among reboot/poweron/shutdown entirely on its own.

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