rebootDevice

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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description aligns with that by stating a reboot, but it adds little beyond the structured annotation and does not disclose effects like temporary device unavailability or connection drop. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool, the description conveys the core operation adequately, especially with the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not explain return behavior, the role of siteId, or the practical impact of the reboot, which leaves the agent with some uncertainty when invoking the tool.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It does clarify that deviceMac is the targeting identifier, but it entirely omits any semantics for the optional siteId parameter, leaving meaningful ambiguity for the agent.

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 states a specific action ('Reboot'), a clear resource ('network device'), and the identifying mechanism ('by its MAC address'). This is fully distinguishable from siblings like getDevice or createRebootSchedule, and the verb+resource pattern 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. In particular, there is no mention that this is for immediate reboots while createRebootSchedule exists for scheduled reboots, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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