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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the container is restarted with current release and secrets, but doesn't mention potential downtime, whether it's disruptive to other tools, or if it requires special permissions. This is a gap for a mutating operation.

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 one concise sentence that gets to the point immediately. It includes essential details (current release, secrets) without padding. It earns a 4 for clarity and efficiency, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It tells you what happens but not the consequences (downtime, side effects) or when to prefer an alternative. It's not inadequate, but could be more complete given the lack of structured safety hints.

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%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description adds context about using 'current release' and 'current secrets', but doesn't elaborate on the 'workspace' parameter's behavior beyond what the schema states. It's adequate but not compensating beyond baseline.

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 action (restart) and the resource (the tool's container) with specific details (current release and secrets). It distinguishes from siblings like deploy and rollback by focusing on container restart, but doesn't explicitly differentiate, so it's not a 5.

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 implies when to use it (when a tool needs a restart with its current configuration), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like deploy or rollback. Context is implicit rather than explicit.

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