request_rh_reboot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context: it creates a ticket for the data center duty shift, and status/correspondence will be in the ticket with a link sent to email. This clarifies that the action is not immediate and is asynchronous. However, it does not disclose any side effects beyond the ticket creation, such as potential downtime or scheduling delays. It adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a brief explanation of the outcome. There is no fluff; every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., removing the parenthetical 'jira/request_reboot' which may be an internal reference), but it is overall efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and where results will be reported (ticket and email). It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., server existence) or the expected time frame for the manual reboot, but these are not critical for the agent to invoke it correctly. The description is sufficient for a simple ticket-creation action, though it could note that the reboot is manual and not guaranteed to be immediate.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'id' is described as 'ID сервера' and 'confirm' as 'Must be true to run the operation.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not explain the purpose of 'confirm' beyond what the schema already states, nor does it clarify the expected id format. Since schema coverage is full, the baseline of 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 tool's purpose: it creates a Remote Hands ticket to manually reboot a server. The verb 'создаёт тикет' (creates a ticket) and the resource 'Remote Hands' are specific. It distinguishes itself from other RH tools (power on/off, etc.) by mentioning 'перезагрузить' (reboot), but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'reboot_server' which likely does a software reboot. Still, the purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for physical/manual reboots when remote reboot is unavailable, nor does it compare to 'reboot_server' or other RH tools like 'request_rh_power_on'. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and the 'manual' hint, but explicit when-to-use guidance is absent.

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