ntd_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it flags 'DESTRUCTIVE', warns of 'minutes of outage', and discloses that it 'Refuses unless confirm=true'. It also notes the service parameter restriction ('never all'). This gives the agent a complete picture of the tool's impact and prerequisites.

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 highly concise, front-loading the critical warning ('DESTRUCTIVE') and then covering usage, confirmation, and parameter constraints in three sentences. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or filler.

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 destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, the outage impact, the confirmation requirement, and service restrictions. It does not describe return values or the behavior of wait/timeout_s, which would improve completeness, but the core context is sufficiently provided.

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 is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains two key parameters: service ('a site alias | service_id (never all)') and confirm ('Refuses unless confirm=true'). However, it omits wait and timeout_s, which are not self-evident given the destructive reboot context. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'reboot the NBN box' with a clear verb and resource. It also includes the scope ('minutes of outage') and a specific use condition ('Only useful when NTD Status errors'), which distinguishes it from diagnostic siblings like ntd_status or check_connection.

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 a clear condition for use: 'Only useful when NTD Status errors.' It also instructs to 'get the user's explicit approval first,' which is an actionable guideline. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the condition implicitly separates it from diagnostic tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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