reboot_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'soft' reboot, implying a graceful shutdown versus a hard reset, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (likely yes, but unspecified), expected downtime, error conditions, or what 'soft' entails operationally. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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—a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part ('reboot', 'server', 'soft') earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with potential downtime), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits critical details: behavioral implications, parameter semantics, error handling, and output expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 0%, with one parameter ('id') undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about the parameter—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., server ID), its format, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb ('reboot') and resource ('a server'), with the qualifier '(soft)' providing additional specificity about the type of reboot. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reset_server' and 'shutdown_server' by specifying a soft reboot, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset_server', 'shutdown_server', 'power_off_server', or 'power_on_server'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., server state), exclusions, or comparative scenarios, leaving usage ambiguous.

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