reboot_guest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the two-step confirmation process (first call shows warning, second with confirm=true executes), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like service interruption, permissions required, or whether the reboot is graceful/forced.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations in a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description does well by explaining the confirmation safety mechanism. However, for a reboot tool, it could better address risks like data loss or specify whether it's a hard/soft reboot to be fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: vmid as 'numeric ID of the VM or container' and confirm's purpose and behavior ('Must be true to execute. First call without confirm shows a warning'). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could specify ID format/ranges.

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 specific action ('reboot') and target resource ('a running VM or container'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like shutdown_guest, stop_guest, start_guest, and delete_guest. It uses precise language that conveys the exact operation.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (to reboot a running VM/container) and includes a safety mechanism with the confirm parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives like shutdown_guest for graceful shutdowns versus reboot for restarting.

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