router_set_reboot_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the confirm flag and that force bypasses the Network Guard safety check, but it does not mention reboot-related downtime or other side effects.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by a compact Args list that is justified by the 0% schema description coverage. There is no filler 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers all parameters and safety flags. It could still be improved by naming the immediate reboot sibling or warning about scheduled downtime.

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 explain all seven parameters. It does so thoroughly: enabled, hours, minutes, mode, day_of_week mapping, confirm, and force are each given clear semantics, ranges, defaults, or enum-like values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it configures or disables automated daily or weekly periodic router reboots. The word 'periodic' and 'schedule' clearly distinguish it from an immediate reboot tool, even without naming a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of router_reboot or router_get_reboot_schedule. It also does not clarify prerequisites for applying a schedule beyond the confirm flag.

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