reboot_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('reboot') but doesn't clarify critical details like whether this requires admin permissions, causes server downtime, is reversible, or has side effects on running services. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a server reboot operation (a mutation with potential downtime), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context. It fails to cover behavioral aspects, usage guidelines, or output expectations, making it incomplete for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the 'server_id' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without needing extra description.

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 ('reboot') and target resource ('a specific SpinupWP server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'restart_service' or 'create_server', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes a server reboot from other operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restart_service' or 'create_server'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or warnings about potential downtime, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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