appliance_reboot

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

While annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds rich behavioral context: drops all KVM control for ~60s, leaves target power untouched, requires effect gate and per-invocation approval, and has no out-of-band power. This goes far beyond what annotations convey.

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?

The description is compact and efficient, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: action, rationale, impact, safety gates, and caution. It is front-loaded with the essential 'not the target' clarification and includes 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?

The description covers purpose, trigger, side effects, and safety precautions comprehensively. However, it omits direct guidance on the `confirm` and `profile` parameters, and there is no output schema to clarify return values. This leaves a small but important gap.

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 explain the parameters, but it does not explicitly. The 'confirm' boolean is only indirectly referenced via 'per-invocation approval', and 'profile' is never explained. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Reboot the KVM APPLIANCE (not the target) to clear a wedged encoder.' It specifies the verb, the resource (appliance vs target), and the purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like power or wake that affect the target.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Recovers the RV1126 encoder wedge (the only fix — the stuck threads are unkillable kernel threads).' Also provides strong warnings: 'use this deliberately, never in an automated loop' and clarifies impact ('Drops all KVM control for ~60s'). This gives clear decision guidance.

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