reboot_router

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the concrete blast radius ('everyone loses internet for about two minutes') and the confirm gate — exactly the operational context annotations cannot express. It does not mention whether this drops all connected clients' sessions or requires admin privileges, keeping it short of a 5. Note the description says confirm is required while the schema marks it optional with default false; this is a schema/description tension, not an annotation contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then impact, then the required input. Nothing is wasted and no sentence restates the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers action, consequence, and the confirm requirement. What is missing is authorization/prerequisite context (e.g., admin role) and recovery expectations, which matter for a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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% and the single parameter has no schema-level description, so the description carries the burden — and it does, explaining the confirm flag's semantics ('Requires confirm=true'). No format or default-behavior detail is added beyond that, so a small gap remains.

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 ('Reboot the router') with no ambiguity, and no sibling tool (router_status, reboot-adjacent tools absent) competes for this action. An agent can select it immediately.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is clearly the disruptive recovery action, but the description never says when to prefer it (e.g., after check_firmware, router_status, or repeated disconnects). Since no sibling offers an alternative reboot path, the omission is tolerable, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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