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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: in-flight requests fail, a few seconds of unavailability, and a returned operation_id. It omits that the operation_id should be polled via the kinsta_get_operation_status sibling.

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?

Four compact clauses, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the core action, followed by consequences, return value, and endpoint. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential extras: downtime impact, the operation_id return, and the HTTP route. The only meaningful omission is guidance to track the returned operation_id through the existing operation-status tool.

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 environment_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain it. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('restart the PHP engine of one environment'), unambiguous and clearly distinct from the cache-clearing, backup, and list siblings. The 'WRITE:' prefix and the POST endpoint reinforce exactly what the call 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?

The description warns that in-flight requests fail and the site may be briefly unavailable, which implies when it is worth invoking, but it never states when to choose this over alternatives (e.g. clear cache vs restart, or which environment scope applies). Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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