bare_metal_reboot_bare_metal_server

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Reboot' implies a destructive/hard action that will stop and start the server, potentially causing downtime seriously. The description does not mention any side effects like data loss risk, downtime, or auth requirements. It also doesn't clarify if this is a graceful or forced reboot, which is important for an agent to assess impact.

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?

The description is concise—three short sentences, each carrying information. It fronts the main action, then the smart identifier resolution, and includes an args/returns structure. Every sentence earns its place without excess fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, has output schema), the description covers the essence. However, it lacks behavioral context such as whether the reboot is graceful or hard, potential downtime, or any prerequisites. With no annotations and an output schema present, the description is complete enough for basic use but leaves an agent without awareness of side effects or confirmation process.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'server_identifier', so the description must compensate. The description explicitly explains that the parameter accepts a label, hostname, or ID, providing valuable semantics beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. This is a key addition for correct usage.

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 clearly states the action 'Reboot' and the resource 'bare metal server', and mentions smart identifier resolution which adds specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like bare_metal_start and bare_metal_stop by using 'reboot', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from bare_metal_reinstall, though the meaning is clear enough.

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?

The description provides context on when to use this tool: when needing to reboot a bare metal server Seek is a candidate for. It also notes smart identifier resolution, which guides the user on acceptable identifier formats)Skip. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for a full reinstall vs reboot) or mention alternatives, though the sibling list shows similar tools.

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