reboot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that unsaved changes are discarded, that management access drops for ~1 min, that a config backup is taken pre-emptively, and that a confirmation token is required. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or the exact response shape, keeping it out of the top score.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its impact, then the confirmation requirement, then the safety net. Every clause adds decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the impact, the required confirmation literal, and the automatic backup, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing only permission/auth expectations, which no structured field supplies.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by supplying the exact literal required for the only parameter (ack='REBOOT'), which the schema does not convey. Note a minor tension: the description says ack is required, while the schema lists zero required parameters and defaults ack to an empty string.

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 (reboot) on a specific resource (the switch), and no sibling tool offers anything comparable — the rest are config getters/setters. The parenthetical clarifies the exact effect of the operation, so an agent can distinguish it instantly.

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 gives strong context for deciding (management drops ~1 min, unsaved changes are discarded), which implicitly tells the agent this is a last-resort disruptive action. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives like save_running_to_startup or backup_config, nor any prerequisite precondition. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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