vm_reboot

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

Annotations already mark this write/destructive/non-idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond annotations: the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag, 'No undo', the note that prior power state is audit-only, and the dry_run preview option. It still omits the operational impact (guest downtime/service interruption) and any permission requirements.

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] marker and the core action, followed by a clean Args list. The middle sentence about the absence of a meaningful inverse is somewhat verbose for the value it adds, but overall it is tight and well-organized.

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, parameterized mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, all params, irreversibility, and the dry-run escape hatch. It is largely complete, with the only remaining gap being the runtime impact on a live guest.

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 burden — and it documents all four parameters: vm_id as a VM uuid with a pointer to vm_list, force as hard vs clean, dry_run as preview, and target as the Xen Orchestra target with omission meaning default. It fully compensates, though it adds no format details for vm_id beyond 'uuid'.

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 disambiguates the mode (clean vs hard with force), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself against siblings like vm_start/vm_stop, so it lands at clear-but-no-sibling-differentiation.

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 implies usage through the clean/force distinction and the 'see vm_list' pointer for the VM id, and it warns 'No undo'. However, it never states when to reboot versus stopping and starting, nor any preconditions or exclusions, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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