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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the core behavioral outcome: a fresh sandbox is created while code and data are preserved. It does not mention auth requirements, downtime, or rate limits, so it is strong but not comprehensive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted wording. Every clause—verb, resource, scope, and state outcome—earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the key state effect. With no annotations, it could still say something about permissions or side effects, but it is largely adequate for the tool's low complexity.

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 ('project', 'env') are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 an environment') and adds scope ('on its current release') that implicitly distinguishes it from deploy, promote, or rollback by clarifying code and data are unchanged. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it falls short of 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 parenthetical '(fresh sandbox, same code and data)' gives context that implies when to use it—when a runtime reset is needed without changing code or data—but it never explicitly states when to use this over alternatives like deploy or rollback. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided.

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