reboot

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description goes further by disclosing real-world impact: all devices lose internet for ~1-2 minutes and the MCP server cannot reach the router until it is back. It also explains the preview/cancel behavior, which is not fully captured by the annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence names the action, the second gives impact, the third gives usage boundaries, and the fourth gives the invocation sequence. Every sentence adds necessary 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-boolean, destructive tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers what happens, when to use and not use, and the exact call sequence. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 already describes the confirm boolean with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics beyond the schema by specifying the exact two-call pattern: confirm=false to preview, then confirm=true to execute. This elevates it slightly above baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reboot the router.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing itself as a last-resort operation (e.g., WAN stuck down per wan_status), making it clear this is not a routine config or lease change tool.

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 says to use only as a last resort and gives a concrete example with wan_status. It also tells the agent when not to reboot ('config and lease changes are already saved and never need a reboot') and provides the confirm=false preview then confirm=true invocation workflow.

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