coronium_restart_modem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is authenticated, triggers a rotation (new IP), and is idempotent in-flight (returns status if a rotation is already pending). This adds meaningful context beyond the tool name and action. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like connection disruption or error conditions, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 concise and front-loaded. It consists of three short sentences, each adding value: what the tool does, idempotency behavior, and a clear next-step pointer. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavior, and a follow-up action. It is fairly complete for this scope, but the lack of differentiation from the sibling coronium_rotate_modem and the absence of return-value details prevent a perfect score.

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 a 100% description of the sole parameter 'proxy', making the description's lack of parameter detail acceptable. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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: 'Trigger a rotation (new IP) on the customer's modem via authenticated /v3 endpoint.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from coronium_get_rotation_status by naming it as a polling tool. However, there is a sibling tool coronium_rotate_modem that seems to perform a similar action, and the description does not differentiate between the two, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 guidance by directing the agent to 'Use coronium_get_rotation_status to poll' after triggering, which clarifies the follow-up step. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus the similar sibling coronium_rotate_modem, nor does it mention any exclusionary conditions. The 'Idempotent in-flight' note is a behavioral property, not explicitly a usage guideline.

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