Принудительная перезагрузка сервера

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral consequence: 'Данные в RAM потеряются' – data in RAM will be lost. It also explicitly calls out the hardware-level nature ('reset power'), which goes beyond the annotations' simple readOnlyHint false. This adds valuable context for the agent.

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, no filler. Each sentence serves a purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and the consequence. Highly efficient.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers all essential aspects: action, trigger condition, and RAM data loss. It is self-sufficient and leaves no critical gaps.

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 covers the only parameter (server_id) with a detailed description ('ID сервера для принудительной перезагрузки'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not further elaborate on parameters, so 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: 'Принудительно перезагружает сервер (reset power)' – force reboots the server via power reset. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool reboot_server by positioning this as a harder alternative when the soft reboot fails.

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?

Explicitly provides a when-to-use instruction: 'Использовать когда мягкий reboot_server не помогает (зависшая ОС)' – use when soft reboot fails (hung OS). This names the alternative tool and gives a clear prerequisite scenario, leaving no ambiguity.

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