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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: the two divergent execution paths (re-install release on last-deploy failure vs. roll the pod) and the read-write token requirement. It doesn't state whether a restart can interrupt in-flight traffic or what the returned job state looks like, but that is largely covered by the output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the non-rebuild constraint, the branch behavior, and the auth requirement with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential additions: token scope and the conditional restart semantics. The one material gap is sibling ambiguity with restart_app, which the description should resolve but doesn't.

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 the single parameter is documented as "the deployment job id (from list_deployments)," so the schema carries the load. The description restates "by job_id" without adding format or sourcing detail, which lands at the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Restart a deployment") plus the mechanical detail that it happens "without rebuilding," which tells the agent what actually changes. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the similarly purposed sibling restart_app, nor from rollback_commit, both of which could plausibly be chosen for a stuck deployment.

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?

Usage is implied (restart a deployment by job_id) and one hard prerequisite is given—"Requires a read-write token." But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the obvious alternatives (restart_app, rollback_commit, stop_commit), so the agent must infer selection from the surface-level wording.

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