router_reboot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the destructive blast radius (host internet and Wi-Fi down 60-90 seconds), the confirmation gate required to execute, and the fact that 'force' bypasses a Network Guard safety check. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking an irreversible, connectivity-severing action.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and then an IMPORTANT warning, which is the right ordering for a destructive tool. The Args section repeats parameter names in full sentences and could be trimmed, but nothing is padded or irrelevant.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers impact, gate, and bypass. Remaining gap: it doesn't say whether the router reconnects on its own, whether in-flight sessions/settings survive, or what 'Network Guard' is protecting against.

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 Args section is doing real work: it explains 'confirm' as the safety gate that must be set True and 'force' as the bypass of Network Guard. That fully covers both parameters, though 'force' is left vague regarding what Network Guard actually blocks and what risks the bypass entails.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Initiates a graceful reboot of the TP-Link router'), and 'graceful' plus the immediate-impact framing separates it in spirit from router_set_reboot_schedule. It never names the sibling schedule tools, so the agent must infer that a one-off restart is this tool while recurring restarts belong elsewhere.

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?

Gives the operative precondition explicitly ('You MUST provide confirm=True to execute') and warns that the host loses internet/Wi-Fi for ~60-90 seconds, which tells the agent the risk profile of calling it. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over alternatives such as router_set_reboot_schedule or router_run_diagnostic.

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