Reboot the host

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it warns that Home Assistant, every add-on including the caller itself, and the OS go offline for minutes, that the call may not receive a reply, that `confirm=True` is mandatory, and it documents specific error payloads (`confirmation_required`, missing SUPERVISOR_TOKEN). This is exactly the context annotations cannot encode.

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 destructive action and confirmation requirement, then cleanly partitioned into Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors / Limits blocks. Length is justified by the irreversibility of the operation; no sentence is 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 one-parameter destructive host operation with an output schema present, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the routing decision, the confirmation gate, the blast radius, and failure modes. Return values are covered by the output schema, so omitting them is correct.

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?

There is a single `confirm` parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that false (the default) performs no action. The description reinforces that nothing is rebooted without `confirm=True`, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 for full coverage applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — rebooting the whole host machine — and immediately scopes it against the near-miss siblings `supervisor_restart_core` and `supervisor_restart_addon`. An agent can distinguish this tool from every restart sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' (host-level change such as an HA OS update requiring a full reboot) and 'Not for' clauses that name the two alternative tools and the condition selecting each. Both the positive trigger and the exclusions are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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