pve_reboot_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Reboot a container' implies a destructive operation that restarts the container, but it doesn't specify critical details: whether it's graceful or forced, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to running processes, expected downtime, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Reboot a container', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with parameters), potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity. It earns a 4 for efficiency but could benefit from slightly more detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive reboot operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, side effects), usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in a production environment.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (node name, container ID, timeout in seconds). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining timeout behavior (e.g., default value, what happens on timeout) or parameter constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation adequately.

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 'Reboot a container' clearly states the action (reboot) and target (container), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'reboot' entails in this context (e.g., graceful restart vs. forced reboot) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_reset_vm' or 'pve_shutdown_container', which involve similar restart/shutdown actions on different resources.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., container must be running), compare it to similar tools like 'pve_reboot_vm' (for VMs) or 'pve_reset_vm' (force reset), or specify scenarios where rebooting is appropriate (e.g., after configuration changes). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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