Reboot VomeHome instance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the disruptive nature is structurally known. The description goes beyond that by explaining the authorization model: in brokered mode the API key's ha:write/instances:write scope is authoritative, and an optional local VOMEHOME_INSTANCES write:false only adds a client-side block. That is genuinely useful context an agent cannot derive from the annotations, though it does not cover downtime duration or how in-flight sessions are handled.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the VM-level effect before the authorization nuance. Dense but every clause carries information; the auth sentence is jargon-heavy but relevant and not padded.

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 reboot with no output schema to explain, the description covers the action, its blast radius (underlying VM), and the permission model. It omits what happens on failure (e.g., auth rejection vs. unreachable instance) and expected downtime, which a cautious agent would want before invoking a destructive operation.

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 required parameter (instance_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains its type and purpose. The description adds nothing about the id format or sourcing beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Reboot a VomeHome Home Assistant instance') and immediately disambiguates scope by clarifying it reboots the underlying VM, which is not obvious from the name alone. No sibling tool in the list performs a reboot, so the action is unambiguous against the surrounding vomehome_* instance tools.

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 implies the operational context (brokered mode vs. local mode) but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as vomehome_get_instance or vomehome_use_instance, nor any preconditions like confirming the instance is reachable or idle. The permission discussion is closer to behavioral disclosure than usage routing, so guidance is only implied.

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