cvcue_reboot_aps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key destructive side effect ('clients will be disconnected') plus the write-enable and confirm gating. It does not cover whether the reboot is applied atomically to all listed MACs, how invalid/unknown MACs are handled, or whether the call blocks until APs return.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the action and its risk front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite flags. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what it does, its blast radius, and its safety gating. Remaining gaps (partial-failure behavior, return value, per-AP vs. bulk semantics) are minor but non-zero for a write 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including confirm's 'must be true to proceed'. The description merely restates that confirm requirement and adds no format or batching semantics for mac_addresses beyond what the schema provides.

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 one or more managed APs') plus the immediate consequence in parentheses. An agent knows exactly what action is performed, though the description does not distinguish this from a nearby destructive sibling like cvcue_disconnect_client (single client vs. whole AP and its attached clients).

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 gives hard preconditions (CVCUE_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true) which is useful gating, but says nothing about when to prefer this over alternatives such as disconnect_client, or when a reboot should be avoided (e.g., during active troubleshooting). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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