reboot_container

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

The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the required risk level, but could add more context about the reboot being non-graceful or the impact on the container's state. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the lifecycle requirement.

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, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the action and a key prerequisite. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity, good annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is almost complete. It could mention that this applies only to LXC containers (not VMs) but that is already clear from the name and purpose. The existence of an output schema means return values are covered elsewhere.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (node and vmid) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Reboot' and the resource 'LXC container', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'reboot_vm' and other container lifecycle operations.

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 an important prerequisite: requires PROXMOX_RISK_LEVEL=lifecycle, guiding when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like shutdown_container + start_container.

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