pve_reboot_guest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Permitido' hints at authorization constraints, but the description does not mention whether the operation is disruptive, what happens to running workloads, whether confirmation is required beyond the confirm parameter, or what errors may occur.

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 short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the main action, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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 mutating operation with four required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is incomplete. It omits the confirmation semantics, accepted values, preconditions, and side effects, so an agent lacks critical context for a correct call.

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. It clarifies that guest_type can refer to a VM or LXC, but node, vmid, and especially confirm are left semantically unexplained; the description does not say what values confirm accepts or how it gates the reboot.

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 verb, 'Reinicia', and a clear resource, 'una VM o LXC', so an agent can tell this reboots a guest. It is not a tautology, though it relies on the tool name for the reboot/guest framing and does not explicitly differentiate itself from start/shutdown.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings like pve_start_guest or pve_shutdown_guest. No conditions, exclusions, or decision rules are provided.

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