reset_db_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'reset (force reboot)' implies a potentially disruptive operation, the description doesn't specify critical details like required permissions, impact on database availability, whether data loss might occur, or typical response behavior. The parenthetical '(force reboot)' adds some context but remains vague about actual consequences.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does at a high level. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 potentially destructive operation (force reboot) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like safety considerations, error conditions, expected outcomes, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The combination of a disruptive action with minimal documentation creates significant gaps in understanding.

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 for the undocumented parameter. The description mentions 'a DB Node' which relates to the 'db_node_id' parameter, but provides no additional semantic context about what constitutes a valid DB Node ID, where to find these IDs, or how the parameter should be formatted. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the single required parameter.

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 ('reset (force reboot)') and the target resource ('a DB Node'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'reboot_db_node' or 'softreset_db_node', which appear to perform similar operations with potentially different behaviors.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'reboot_db_node' and 'softreset_db_node' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes a 'reset (force reboot)' from a regular 'reboot' or 'softreset', nor any prerequisites or context for when this specific operation is appropriate.

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