save_and_reboot

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: it takes a backup, performs a save+reboot, auto-reconnects after ~7 seconds, and defaults to a dry-run unless confirm=True. This fully covers the tool's side effects and safety mechanism.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a clear note and parameter explanation. Every sentence provides useful information without padding.

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?

Despite being a simple one-parameter tool, the description thoroughly covers purpose, usage context, behavioral consequences, and parameter details. It is fully self-contained for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 schema only defines 'confirm' with a default of false, but the description explains that 'confirm: Must be True to proceed. Dry-run by default.' This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying exactly how the parameter controls execution.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Save the running config to EEPROM and reboot the FC.' It also distinguishes itself from dedicated write tools by noting they already save automatically, and this tool is specifically for raw cli() changes or forcing a clean reboot.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'the dedicated write tools already save automatically on iNAV, so you rarely need this — it's for persisting changes made via raw cli() reads or to force a clean reboot.' This clearly tells when to use versus avoid the tool.

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