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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates a mutating operation, and the description's 'restart' aligns with that. It adds context that the target is a running project's container, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as downtime, data persistence, or what happens if the project is not running.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and target, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not state behavior for non-running projects, error conditions, or how this relates to start/stop. The agent is left to guess at edge cases and the intended workflow.

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. It implies that the 'project' parameter identifies the project whose container is restarted, but it never explicitly documents the parameter's format, requiredness, or possible values. This leaves the agent to infer the parameter's meaning from the tool name and description.

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 states a specific verb ('restart') and a resource ('a running project's container'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like start_project or stop_project, but the verb itself conveys the distinct restart action.

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 tool versus alternatives such as start_project or stop_project, nor any explicit mention of prerequisites like the project needing to be running. The running-project qualifier is the only implicit hint, but no scenarios or exclusions are stated.

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