Reconnect device

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

Adds context annotations do not cover: traffic pauses for a few seconds, a control-scope token is required, and the device must be a Portveil-agent. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before triggering a non-read-only, idempotent reconnection.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action before the trigger conditions and side effects. Every sentence carries distinct information: behavior, usage, disruption, prerequisites.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, auth scope, and device-type constraints. It does not indicate what a successful result looks like or what happens on failure, which is a small remaining gap.

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%, and the schema already explains that 'device' accepts a name, partial name, or dev_ ID, is case-insensitive, and can be sourced from list_devices. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, 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 ('Tell a device to re-establish its VPN tunnel') and immediately distinguishes itself from move_device with 'at its current location, without moving it'. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from the closest sibling.

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 explicit trigger conditions ('connected but not confirmed, or traffic seems stuck') and excludes the move case. Preconditions (control-scope token, Portveil-agent device) are spelled out. It stops short of naming when to prefer disconnect_device or rotate_device instead, so a 4 rather than 5.

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