reboot_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about downtime, service interruption, required permissions, or the real-world impact of force vs graceful mode. It is effectively silent on behavior beyond the verb itself.

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 single phrase is front-loaded and waste-free, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing in the sentence earns its place because it duplicates the tool name.

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 disruptive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least cover impact and the force/graceful distinction. As written, an agent cannot judge risk or side effects before invoking it.

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 both device_id and the force/graceful enum documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond it, notably omitting the operational consequences of each mode.

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?

"Reboot a device" merely restates the tool name reboot_device; it adds no scope, target, or distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate from siblings like run_script or get_device_health, though the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives (run_script, get_device_health) or preconditions for rebooting. The agent is left to infer everything about appropriate selection.

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