reboot_server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context: it interrupts services during reboot, requires confirm=true, and is asynchronous with a callback-key response. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and response handling.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, side effect, and required confirmation plus async behavior. No fluff, front-loaded with the core 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?

For a 2-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: side effects, confirmation requirement, and async response pattern. It doesn't describe the exact callback-key format, but that's a minor gap given the check_task sibling exists and the description points to it.

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 both parameters (id and confirm). The description adds the requirement that confirm must be true, which reinforces the schema's note, but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Перезагрузить сервер' – reboot server) and the resource (server), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like power_on/power_off and request_rh_reboot by specifying it's an eq/reboot operation. The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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: it requires confirm=true and is asynchronous, which tells the agent when and how to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know this is the reboot operation, distinct from power on/off or remote-hand reboot tools.

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