Reboot device

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 safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond a pointer to the underlying tool: it doesn't mention that the device goes offline, that confirmation is required to actually apply, or that the tool is disruptive to connected clients.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key fact (the underlying action) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given what is omitted.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema and an undocumented required deviceId. The description does nothing to fill those gaps — no preview semantics, no consequence disclosure, no identifier sourcing.

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 67%; the confirm and dry_run parameters are documented in the schema, but deviceId has no description anywhere and the description adds no parameter meaning. It could have clarified that deviceId comes from list_devices or get_device, but adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a wrapper over device_action with action=RESTART, which pins down the operation and its relationship to the sibling. However, it never says in its own words that it reboots a device or what 'device' scope means, relying on the tool name and sibling knowledge to complete the picture.

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?

By naming device_action with action=RESTART, it implies 'use this instead of device_action when you want a restart,' which is implicit routing rather than stated guidance. There is no statement about when not to use it, prerequisites, or what the preview/dry-run path means for choosing this tool.

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