vm_reboot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: it flags that no undo token is produced and that a reboot has no inverse, which is meaningful given the undo_list/undo_apply siblings in this toolset.

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 and the core action, followed by a one-line warning and a compact Args block. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers action, safety caveat, and all parameters. The only gap is return behavior (e.g., whether a task id/UPID is returned for polling via task_status), which would help since no output schema exists.

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 argument semantics. It documents all three params: vmid as a 'Numeric Proxmox VM id', target as a 'Proxmox target name from config', and node with the operational cue 'omit to auto-locate the VM' — the latter adds behavior the bare nullable schema does not convey.

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 VM') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('graceful') that distinguishes it from the hard-stop siblings vm_stop/vm_shutdown. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must still infer reboot vs. stop/start on its own.

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?

The description says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance: it never states when to prefer a reboot over vm_shutdown followed by vm_start, nor any prerequisites such as the VM being running. The '[WRITE]' tag and 'graceful' hint at context but stop short of routing guidance.

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