restart_device

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the operation and parameter formats; it does not disclose that a restart will reboot the device, cause temporary downtime, or potentially disrupt active connections. The agent must infer operational impact from the tool name.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose line comes first, followed by a tight parameter legend. There is no filler or repetition; every line adds information and is easy to scan.

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 simple action, the description covers purpose and all parameters well, and the output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not essential. However, it omits behavioral caveats such as expected downtime or asynchronous execution, and it does not differentiate from related device actions. It is minimally viable but not fully risk-aware.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: host accepts console name/ID/composite ID in MAC:numericId format, site accepts name or ID, and device_id is sourced from list_devices. It also highlights device_id as required with a concrete retrieval instruction.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Restart') and a precise resource ('an adopted device'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from the many sibling device tools that perform different actions.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose restart over alternatives like execute_device_action, upgrade_device, or locate_device, nor when not to use it. The only contextual hint is 'adopted device,' which is insufficient routing guidance.

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