Reboot router

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that, saying nothing about downtime, dropped client connections, or loss of unsaved configuration/runtime state.

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?

It is a single four-word sentence with no waste, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than economy of expression. Nothing is front-loaded because almost nothing is said.

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, non-idempotent reboot with no annotations in the description and no output schema, an agent is left without any warning about service interruption or side effects. The definition is far too thin for a disruptive 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?

The input schema has zero parameters with full coverage, so the description has nothing parameter-level to compensate for; per the zero-parameter baseline this dimension is inherently satisfied. Still, the description never confirms that the operation requires no arguments.

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 simply restates the tool name and title ('Reboot the router') with no additional specificity about scope, target, or effect. It is a tautological echo of the structured fields rather than an independent statement of 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no reference to any sibling tool (e.g. when to reboot vs. inspect state with get_config_state or get_system_info). With a large sibling set of read-only getters, some differentiation was expected.

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