Перезагрузка сервера

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the ACPI reboot mechanism and that the OS gracefully terminates processes before restart. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 consists of three short, meaningful sentences, each earning its place. The action is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter design and existing annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, mechanism, and use cases. It does not explicitly address edge cases like ACPI unavailability, but for a reboot tool, the coverage is sufficient.

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 only parameter (server_id) has complete schema description coverage (100%), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 uses a specific verb ('перезагружает' - reboots) and resource ('сервер' - server), with 'мягко' (softly) qualifying the reboot method. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hard_reboot_server and shutdown_server.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Используй для применения обновлений ядра или сброса подвисшего состояния' (use for applying kernel updates or resetting a hung state). It provides clear context but does not mention exclusions or directly reference alternatives like hard_reboot_server.

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