request_rh_reboot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: a ticket is created for the datacenter on-call shift, status/correspondence live in the ticket, and a link is emailed. It does not, however, state that the action is irreversible or discuss timing/SLA.

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, front-loaded with the action and mechanism before the secondary detail about ticket correspondence. No filler or 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 and only two well-documented params, the description adequately explains what happens on invocation (ticket created, link emailed, correspondence in the ticket). Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though outcome/result details are thin.

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 the schema already documents both id and confirm. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter values, formats, or the confirmation gate, 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?

States a specific verb+resource (reboot the server) with a scope qualifier (Remote Hands, manually) and the underlying mechanism (jira/request_reboot ticket creation). The 'Remote Hands' framing implies physical/datacenter intervention, which helps distinguish it from reboot_server, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'manually' and 'datacenter on-call shift' — an agent can infer this is for cases requiring human intervention. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (reboot_server, request_rh_power_on/off) to route the agent.

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