reboot_server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the service interruption during reboot and the asynchronous callback-key/check_task pattern, which the annotations do not convey.

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 compact sentences with the action, the risk, the required flag, and the async contract front-loaded in that order. No filler, no 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains that the response carries a callback key for check_task, closing the async loop. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only the sibling-routing decision (RH vs standard reboot).

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 coverage is 100%, so both id and confirm are documented in the schema itself, including the rejection behavior for confirm. The description restates the confirm=true requirement without adding format or semantics beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Reboot a server') and even maps it to the underlying endpoint (eq/reboot), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the near-siblings request_rh_reboot or the power_on/power_off family, leaving the agent to infer which reboot path applies to which server type.

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?

It states the hard precondition ('Requires confirm=true') and routes the async follow-up to check_task, which is genuinely actionable. However it offers no when-to-use vs request_rh_reboot/power_off guidance and no when-not conditions, so alternative selection is only implied.

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