shelly_system_reboot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so safety intent is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the confirm:true gate and that the action is audit-logged, which tells the agent about irreversibility and traceability.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action leads and the requirement follows. Every sentence earns its place, though it could pack slightly more into the same space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 0% parameter coverage and an opaque device/delay_ms, the description leaves meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only clarifies 'confirm'. It leaves 'device' (identifier format) and 'delay_ms' (delay before reboot) unexplained in both schema and description.

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'), making the action unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling read/write/config tools. It does not name siblings or scope, but no sibling performs a reboot, so differentiation is inherent.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the many system siblings. It states a prerequisite (confirm:true) but not the context that should drive selection.

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