request_rh_reboot

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral details: the operation creates a ticket rather than directly rebooting, and status/correspondence will live in the ticket with a link sent by email. This sets accurate expectations about async workflow and where results appear.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up behavior is stated economically. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what will happen, where to track the result, and how the link will arrive. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents id and confirm. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond that, which is acceptable because the schema carries the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it creates a Remote Hands request to manually reboot a server. It also distinguishes itself from direct reboots and other RH actions by explicitly saying 'перезагрузить сервер вручную' and by identifying the DC duty shift as the actor.

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 clear context: this is a Remote Hands request for a manual reboot, and it routes follow-up to the created ticket. It does not explicitly name alternatives like reboot_server or when-not-to-use, but the 'вручную' and 'дежурной смены дата-центра' wording makes the intended use case clear.

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