reboot_guest

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation aspect is already known. The description adds the 'gracefully' qualifier and explains that the timeout parameter concerns 'the shutdown half of the reboot,' which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens if the timeout expires or whether a guest agent is required, so transparency is decent but incomplete.

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 exceptionally concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a minimal args list. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no enums, output schema present), the description is largely adequate. It explains what the tool does and covers both parameters. However, it misses important context such as the requirement that the guest must be running and the effect of a timeout on the shutdown phase, leaving slight gaps for an agent.

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 description must compensate. It provides concise semantics for both parameters: 'vmid: Guest to reboot' and 'timeout: Seconds to wait for the shutdown half of the reboot.' This adds meaning beyond property names, though it omits details like the default value (60) and potential allowed ranges.

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 first sentence 'Gracefully reboot a VM or container' clearly states the action (reboot) and the resource (VM or container). The verb is specific and effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like shutdown_guest, stop_guest, suspend_guest, and resume_guest.

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 implies usage by saying 'Gracefully reboot a VM or container' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running) or scenarios where a forced stop might be preferred. Usage is merely implied.

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