hcloud_server_reboot_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — the operation depends on guest ACPI support and can silently fail to reboot — which is knowledge you cannot get from the annotations or schema. It omits return/action-object semantics, which keeps it below 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the essential capability stated first and the caveat second. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 two-parameter action tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and the main failure mode. A brief note on what the call returns (an async action, hence the `wait` flag) and the alternative for non-ACPI guests would make it complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and both the server id and the `wait` polling flag are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (it never mentions the polling behavior), so the baseline 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 specific verb and resource ('Soft-reboot a Server') and immediately clarifies the mechanism ('gracefully by sending an ACPI request'), which implicitly separates it from hard-reset siblings like hcloud_server_reset_action. It never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition and failure condition: the OS must support ACPI and react to the request, otherwise the reboot will not happen. That is real when-to-use/should-not-expect-success guidance, but it stops short of routing the agent to the hard-reset tool when ACPI is unavailable.

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