reboot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new information beyond that: 'IRREVERSIBLE — audit only, no undo' quantifies the blast radius and warns there is no rollback path, which is the key decision input for an agent contemplating a destructive action.

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?

Risk and irreversibility are front-loaded in the first line, followed by the practical dry_run tip. There is minor redundancy — dry_run is explained once inline and again in the Args block — but nothing is padded or buried.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool with annotations already covering safe/unsafe flags, the description covers the essentials: risk, irreversibility, preview path, and target default. Missing only the discovery mechanism for valid targets and any permission/auth prerequisites.

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 carries the full burden, and it does document both parameters: dry_run's preview behavior and target's meaning plus the 'omit for the default' behavior. It stops short of explaining valid target values ('name from config' is not a formal enumeration), leaving some ambiguity about how to discover a valid target.

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 ('the firewall') in the first two words, and the [WRITE][risk=high] prefix immediately separates it from read-oriented siblings like health_status. It is clearly distinguishable from the similarly named restart_service because the resource is named.

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 strong context: high-risk write, irreversible, and the concrete workaround 'Pass dry_run=True to preview', which tells the agent how to proceed safely. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the neighboring restart_service or reconfigure tools, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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