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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the description need not restate that. It adds real behavioral value beyond them: the rolling-restart mechanism, that secrets and env are re-read, the 40-second readiness wait, and a required approval step. It does not add rate limits or auth detail, so it stays below a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then exclusions, then the approval prerequisite. No filler; every clause adds behavioral 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 mutation tool with annotations (destructive, non-idempotent), a rich schema, and an output schema (so return values need not be explained), this covers mechanism, exclusions, timing, and approval. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., what happens to in-flight requests during the restart), keeping it just short of complete.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the waitSeconds description that explains its semantics and range. The description adds only a default-style statement ('waits up to 40 seconds') that partially mirrors the waitSeconds schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Restart a workload') and immediately defines the mechanism ('every replica is replaced by a fresh one on the same spec (a rolling restart that re-reads secrets and env)'), distinguishing it from siblings like rollback_workload, promote_workload, and workload_stop_replica. It also explicitly names cron and suspended workloads as out of scope, which no sibling does.

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 gives a clear when-not ('Not for cron workloads (workload_start_cron runs one now) or suspended ones') and an explicit prerequisite ('Get approval first: replicas restart.'). The alternative for cron (workload_start_cron) is named directly. This is explicit routing.

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