Reconnect device

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a transient side effect ('Traffic may pause for a few seconds') and required preconditions ('control-scope token' and 'Portveil-agent device'). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context a calling agent needs.

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 concise sentences, each carrying necessary information: what it does, when to use it, what to expect, and what prerequisites are required. No wasted words.

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 tool with complete schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description covers the action, conditions, side effects, and requirements. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 for the only parameter is 100%, and the schema already richly explains the device field. The description doesn't add much to parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to because the schema handles it fully.

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 states a clear, specific action: 're-establish its VPN tunnel at its current location.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like move_device, disconnect_device, and rotate_device, making its unique purpose immediately obvious.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'when it shows connected but not confirmed, or traffic seems stuck.' It also clarifies a key boundary by adding 'without moving it,' which helps an agent avoid confusing this with move_device.

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