createRebootSchedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: times are interpreted in the site timezone and specific credentials are required. However, it omits significant operational consequences — that this schedules actual device reboots that will disrupt connected clients, and that the schedule is enabled by default. Meaningful context, but not a complete behavioral picture.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the value proposition, then two actionable caveats (timezone verification and credentials). Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 10-parameter tool with conditional logic (dayOfWeek required when timingType=2, dayOfMonth when timingType=3) and no output schema, the description covers the core flow well but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain that the schedule triggers real device reboots affecting clients, nor clarify the role of siteId. The schema partially covers the conditional timing logic, which keeps this from scoring lower.

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?

The description adds real value beyond the schema by clarifying that time parameters are interpreted in the site timezone, which affects hour/minute/dayOfWeek semantics. The 'targeting specific devices' phrase maps to deviceMacs. However, with schema coverage around 60%, parameters like name, siteId, and monthOfYear remain undocumented in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a reboot schedule') plus a scope qualifier ('targeting specific devices'), making the tool's function immediately identifiable. The create verb cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools listRebootSchedules, updateRebootSchedule, and deleteRebootSchedule without needing to open any schemas.

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 provides a concrete when-to-use rationale ('capping the memory creep that makes access points degrade over long uptimes') and names a prerequisite step ('verify that first with getSiteSettings'), which is explicit cross-tool guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context it gives is enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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