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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds useful context that all running containers are restarted and gives the exact endpoint, but it does not disclose potential downtime, side effects, or whether configuration is preserved. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded: it opens with a clear MUTATING warning, states the action and scope, then provides the endpoint. Every element 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 mutation, the description covers the action, scope, endpoint, and destructive nature. The only gaps are notes on post-restart behavior or response details, but the tool's low complexity keeps these omissions minor.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with simple descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description only restates parameter names in the endpoint path and adds no additional meaning about formats, constraints, or parameter relationships.

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'), a resource ('service'), and the scope ('all running containers'). The REST endpoint reinforces the exact operation, and it is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like pause_service, resume_service, scale_service, and trigger_service_build.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'restart'.

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