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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds context annotations cannot convey: the screen goes blank until the player restarts (typically under a minute), screens outside your reach are silently skipped in bulk calls, and the `screen.edit` permission is required. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a disruptive restart.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: capability, impact/duration, usage routing, partial-failure behavior, and auth requirement. The core action is front-loaded before the caveats.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Combined with the downtime estimate, permission requirement, and bulk-skip semantics, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke this disruptive tool safely.

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 100%, so both parameters (screenId, screenIds) and their formats are already documented in the schema. The description references the bulk form but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Restart the player on one screen or many') with the scope of the bulk variant. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling refresh_screen, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('when a screen is frozen or shows an error') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('when content is only out of date, refresh_screen is gentler'). This is explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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