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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and readOnly=false, but the description adds operational context annotations cannot: all sites go offline for the duration (a minute or two), the call is asynchronous and returns an event_id, and the underlying endpoint. That is genuine added behavioral value beyond structured fields.

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 WRITE marker, then blast radius, then trigger condition, then async return and endpoint. Four tight clauses, no filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by disclosing the async event_id return. Downtime impact, trigger, idempotency and destructive nature are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% (server_id is documented as the SpinupWP server id), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as accepted id ranges or sourcing the id from list_servers, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (a whole server) and scope ('whole server') that cleanly separates it from the sibling restart_nginx/restart_php/restart_mysql tools, which operate on individual services. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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 an explicit trigger: use when spinupwp_get_server shows reboot_required, routing the agent to the sibling that produces the precondition. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use (e.g. prefer the service restart tools for service-level issues), but the 'whole server' scope carries that distinction implicitly.

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