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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false); the description adds substantial context beyond that: a tracked operation via the cloud provider API, native reboot with fallback to power cycle, brief workload unavailability, the no-concurrent-restart constraint, and unsupported providers/cluster types. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Dense but well ordered: the action and scope lead, then mechanics, then the not-a-remedy exclusion, then identification. It runs long and the explanatory clause about the agent's message-bus connection is more than strictly needed, so it stops short of a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero required parameters, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: prerequisites, node-identification options, provider support limits, and operational impact. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and each schema field already carries its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the node_id/node_name/target identification strategy (preference for node_id, bastion needing no name) rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (restart) plus a precisely scoped resource: one provisioned VM node of an Ankra-managed cluster, covering control-plane, worker, and bastion roles across six named providers. It cleanly separates itself from neighbors like restart_deployment and ssh_repair_node by naming the infrastructure layer it acts on.

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 when-to-use ('the fix for a VM that is hung or powered off - the case where SSH cannot reach the node at all') and when-not ('not a remedy for failed addon/manifest deploys or an unresponsive cluster agent'). It also states prerequisites (node must be 'up', no restart in flight) and mandates calling list_cluster_nodes first when the node_id is unknown.

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