Reboot a device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is structured data, not description value. The description adds no behavior beyond the title: it does not say whether in-flight sessions or unsaved work are lost, how long the reboot takes, whether credentials must be pre-established, or what a success response looks like.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting anything beyond the bare action.

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?

The tool is simple, but it is a destructive remote operation with no output schema and no annotations covering preconditions. For an agent to call it safely it still needs to know about the prior-authentication requirement and the effect on running work, neither of which the description supplies.

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% and the single device_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the accepted identifier forms (IP, hostname, MAC, device id). The description contributes nothing on top of that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Reboot') plus a clearly delimited resource set ('remote Raspberry Pi or SSH device'), which reads unambiguously and cannot be confused with siblings like pi_device_authenticate or pi_command_run. It loses a point only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 statement of when to use this versus pi_command_run or pi_device_authenticate, and no prerequisites are named — notably nothing says the device must first be authenticated via the sibling authenticate tool. The agent is left to infer the entire invocation context.

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