instance_reboot

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and return message, without mentioning effects like instance downtime during reboot, whether the instance must be running, or that it is a non-destructive restart. No contradiction, but substantial gaps remain.

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 and well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and the main action is front-loaded. Including ctx, which is not part of the schema, adds minor noise, but overall the format is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The output schema exists, so return details are partially covered, and the description does mention the status message. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool relative to other lifecycle operations, potential side effects, or prerequisites. Given the many sibling tools and the absence of annotations, the description could be more 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 description coverage is 0%, so the descriptions adds meaningful value by explaining that instance_id can be an ID, label, or hostname, with concrete examples. This helps an agent correctly populate the parameter. However, the ctx argument is mentioned in the description but not in the schema and lacks explanation, which introduces slight ambiguity.

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 'Reboot an instance', which is a specific verb and resource. It is clear and distinct from other lifecycle operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like instance_start or instance_stop to differentiate itself. The action is unambiguous enough for an agent to grasp the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as instance_start, instance_stop, or instance_reinstall. The description does not include exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when a reboot is appropriate. While the tool names are self-explanatory, an agent would benefit from explicit routing guidance.

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