proxmox_guest_reboot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful traits: confirmation is required, the action is intentionally explicit, and the call returns only an accepted task UPID, signaling an asynchronous Proxmox task. It does not cover permissions or failure conditions, but the core side-effect and async behavior are disclosed.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and includes the critical safety and return information. No filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 tool has five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must convey purpose and return contract. It does so, including the accepted-task UPID, though it stops short of naming the task-status sibling for follow-up or describing preconditions.

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 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The wording 'explicitly targeted' and 'after confirmation' loosely maps to vmid/endpoint and confirm, adding marginal context beyond the schema, which is enough to hold baseline.

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 names a specific action (Reboot), a resource (Proxmox guest), and a key constraint (explicitly targeted after confirmation), and states the return value (accepted task UPID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_guest_start and proxmox_guest_shutdown without needing the 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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over proxmox_guest_shutdown or proxmox_guest_start, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond confirmation. The only implied context is that rebooting is the desired operation; the description does not explicitly route to alternatives or state when not to use it.

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