reboot_router

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the mandatory confirm=true gate (valuable, since the schema shows confirm defaulting to false with nothing required), but it omits the operation's disruptive nature — network downtime, dropped sessions, restart latency, irreversibility.

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?

Two clipped phrases, zero filler, with the action front-loaded ahead of the gating requirement. Nothing redundant is present.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the confirmation gate but omits the operational consequences an agent should weigh before invoking it. Adequate but with a clear gap around impact and failure behavior.

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, and it does: it states that confirm=true is mandatory, which is meaning the schema alone contradicts (the boolean defaults to false with no required flag). It says nothing about the behavior when confirm is false/omitted, but the essential semantic is supplied.

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 names a specific verb+resource (ルータ再起動 = reboot the router), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings like router_overview and get_firmware. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any named alternative, but the action is unmistakable.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as raw_request, nor any stated preconditions or timing advice. The only usage-like statement is the confirm requirement, which is a parameter constraint rather than routing guidance.

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