reboot_guest

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

Annotations declare destructive=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it discloses a required authorization tag, a bounded wait of up to 5 minutes, what data is returned (kernel and uptime), and a failure mode (guest locked). These are non-obvious operational facts an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences, no filler: action and precondition first, wait/return semantics second, trigger condition third, refusal last. Every clause carries distinct information.

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-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite tag, the timing bound, the returned values, the trigger, and the blocking condition. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the pointer to list_guests. The description adds no extra meaning about vmid beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Reboot a guest through Proxmox") plus the verification step that follows it. An agent can distinguish this from snapshot_guest or apply_updates purely from the first clause.

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?

Names the exact triggering condition ("when check_updates or apply_updates report reboot_required") and the refusal condition ("Refused while Proxmox locks the guest"). Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit and tie to named sibling tools.

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