Reboot an endpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds only that the reboot runs through the reboot action template and that recovery can be tracked elsewhere; it omits practical consequences such as temporary endpoint unavailability or interrupted user sessions.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the follow-up hint comes second. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

With full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema, the description only needs to frame intent and workflow, which it does. The main residual gap is not flagging that execution requires confirm='YES' and dry_run=false (a preview-by-default behavior), though that is fully specified in the schema.

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 100%, so all eight parameters — including confirm, dry_run, target_type and skip_connectivity_check — are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: reboots the host. Among the many action-executing siblings (run_script, deploy_update, uninstall_program), 'reboot' is inherently distinct, so an agent can identify it. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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 a follow-up tool (action1_wait_for_automation) to track recovery, which is genuinely useful sequencing guidance. However, it says nothing about when to prefer this over other remediation actions, nor about prerequisites such as needing a reachable endpoint before rebooting.

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