host_reboot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it discloses a lot: rolling batch-1 sequential reboots, waiting for ssh + remnanode to return before the next host, and that the dry run reports users online per node and pending-reboot state. It omits permission requirements and failure/recovery details beyond what parameters imply, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, with secondary dry-run detail trailing. Almost every clause carries information, though the phrasing is compressed enough to border on terse.

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 destructive, 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the operation mechanics and dry-run behavior needed to call it safely. It lacks explicit safety/permission framing and does not describe the return payload, but the pre-flight dry-run and planHash params largely cover the safety story.

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 coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description only reinforces the dry-run visibility ('users online per node') and rolling batch behavior, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own descriptions of wait, apply, target, etc.

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 specific verb (Reboot) and resource (hosts) and immediately adds the mechanism (shutdown -r +delay) and rolling semantics. No sibling tool in the list performs a reboot, so the purpose is unambiguous and clearly differentiated.

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 a dry-run-then-apply workflow and mentions rolling batch behavior, which hints at how to use it. However it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., host_exec or service_action), nor prerequisites such as required access. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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