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

Adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses that in-flight requests are dropped, that a repeat restarts again (reinforcing idempotentHint=false), and, critically, that restarting removes nothing (consistent with destructiveHint=false). It also states the auth prerequisite (connecting a Valet account), which no annotation conveys.

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?

Five tight sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by behavioral consequences, verification guidance, refusal cases, and auth requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 no output schema, the description covers the safety profile (removes nothing, drops in-flight requests), non-idempotency, target restrictions (websites refused), auth prerequisite, and the sibling to use for verification. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the kind enum and process_type semantics. The description only echoes the process_type scoping ('or only those of one process type') without adding syntax or format beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (restart) and resource (an app's/agent's running processes), plus the finer scope of a single process type. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_service, destroy_service, and scale_service, and explicitly notes that websites are refused, so an agent knows which target classes are out of scope.

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?

Gives clear context: websites are refused, a Valet account connection is required, and get_service is named as the way to verify processes are up. It does not name a same-job alternative (there is effectively none for restart), so it stops just short of explicit when/when-not routing, but the preconditions and exclusions are well covered.

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