sys_autoreboot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'write — requires confirmation' which signals a mutating operation and a confirmation requirement, but it does not explain what confirmation entails (e.g., what user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id are for), nor the effects of the scheduled restart, reversibility, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral information.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the primary action first, then adds the parameter dependency and the write/confirmation note. There is no wasted wording, though the content is terse and could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters, a write operation with confirmation tokens, no output schema, and zero annotation coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the confirmation workflow, the meaning of each parameter, or what happens after successful configuration (e.g., when the restart occurs, whether it applies immediately). An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the current definition.

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. It only adds the dependency note that mode=hours requires the hours parameter, which is helpful, but it does not explain the purpose or format of user_code, confirm_token, or confirmation_id – all critical for invoking a write-with-confirmation operation. Most parameter semantics remain undocumented.

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 operation: 'Configure scheduled auto-restart' – a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'sys_reboot' (immediate reboot) or 'sys_commit' (config commit), leaving ambiguity about whether 'auto-restart' is a scheduled reboot variant. It does add a useful scoping detail (mode=hours requires hours param).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sys_reboot. It hints at parameter dependency (mode=hours requires hours param) but does not state prerequisites, nor does it mention when this tool is appropriate over other reboot or scheduling tools. No alternatives are named.

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