RebootInstances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '批量重启' (batch reboot) which implies a destructive/mutative operation affecting multiple instances, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like: whether this requires specific permissions, potential service interruption duration, whether instances must be in a particular state, error handling for partial failures, or confirmation requirements. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient Chinese sentence that communicates the core purpose and context. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the primary action more prominently.

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 batch operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like: what happens during reboot (service interruption), whether instances must be stopped first, error behavior for invalid InstanceIds, return values or confirmation, or rate limits. The combination of mutation tool + zero annotations + no output schema requires more comprehensive description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (InstanceIds, RegionId, ForceStop). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, format details, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('批量重启' - batch reboot) and target resource ('ECS实例' - ECS instances), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like StartInstances/StopInstances by specifying reboot rather than power state changes, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from RebootRDSInstances which reboots a different resource type.

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 some usage context ('适用于需要同时管理和重启多台ECS实例的场景' - suitable for scenarios requiring simultaneous management and reboot of multiple ECS instances), which implies batch operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like StopInstances+StartInstances or RebootRDSInstances, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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