reset_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 'hard' reset, which implies more forceful behavior than a standard reboot, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this causes data loss, requires specific permissions, affects uptime, or has irreversible consequences. For a potentially destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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—just four words—and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place: 'reset' (action), 'server' (resource), 'hard' (modifier). No wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 potentially destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'hard' means, what the parameter represents, what happens during the reset, or what the agent should expect as a result. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all, leaving it completely undocumented. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema name implies.

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 ('reset') and resource ('server'), and specifies it's a 'hard' reset, which distinguishes it from softer resets like reboot. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reboot_server' or 'power_off_server' in terms of what 'hard' means operationally.

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 'reboot_server' or 'power_off_server'. The description mentions 'hard' but doesn't explain the implications or when this type of reset is appropriate versus other power management tools.

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