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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add context — which it does, disclosing that active sessions end and unsaved work or remote access may be interrupted. That is real operational consequence beyond the hints, though it does not mention reconnect behavior or irreversibility of lost work.

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 sentences, with the authorization gate and the destructive consequence front-loaded rather than buried. The leading 'Use this to' is minor filler but nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential missing piece — blast radius and the authorization requirement. Only a post-reboot reconnection note would fully close it.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the 90-second cap and its rationale. The description adds nothing about `device` or `delay_seconds`, 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 and resource ('reboot the paired computer'), which distinguishes it from the power_shutdown, power_sleep, and power_lock siblings by the verb alone. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from 'reboot' rather than being told.

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?

'Use this to reboot ... when explicitly authorized' plus 'verify necessity first' gives clear conditions for invocation and a prerequisite gate. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use power_shutdown to power off entirely) or explaining when a reboot is preferable to a service_restart.

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