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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent, and non-read-only. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: player downtime, content fetching during boot, world replacement if a restore is queued, account balance requirements, and failure unless the server is 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 dense but front-loaded: it states the action and downtime first, then usage guidance, then prerequisites and side effects. Every sentence carries useful operational 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 destructive restart operation, the description covers downtime, prerequisites, balance requirements, interaction with backup restore, failure conditions, and what the tool returns. No output schema exists, but the return value is mentioned.

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 reported as 0%, and the description does not mention the required path/serverId parameter or how to obtain it. The nested schema does describe serverId as coming from listServers, but the description itself adds no parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: rebooting a running server's machine. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from restartToApplySettings, so an agent can select the right restart tool without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (pending size change or stuck server), when to use the alternative restartToApplySettings (changed game settings), and what to do if the server is not running (use startServer). It also notes the interaction with restoreBackup.

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