reboot_device

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that prior status is captured for the audit trail, that the action is irreversible, and notably that no undo descriptor is offered even though an undo subsystem exists in this toolset. It stops short of describing failure behavior or permissions.

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][risk=high] tag and the core action, followed by consequences and then args. Every sentence contributes, though the audit-trail sentence is slightly explanatory and could be tightened.

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 destructive three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers irreversibility, dry-run preview, audit behavior, and all parameter meanings. Edge cases such as permission requirements or post-reboot state verification are left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: all three parameters are documented, including that target is a config name and that omitting it selects the default. The meanings added go beyond the bare schema titles.

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 device') with an explicit risk marker, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling mutations like update_device or blink_device_leds at a glance. The parenthetical '(no safe inverse)' further sharpens what kind of reboot this is.

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 an actionable hint to use dry_run=True to preview, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools such as blink_device_leds or update_device, nor when a reboot is inappropriate, so context is only implied.

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