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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and the title flags 'mutates infra', so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful scope — that ALL running containers are restarted, not a rolling/partial operation — but says nothing about downtime, async behavior, or whether the operation is safe to repeat.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation warning and the core action, with no filler. The trailing endpoint URL is slightly redundant for an agent that just needs to call the tool, but it is compact and harmless.

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 two-param, no-output-schema, destructive operation, the description covers the action and scope but omits operational context an agent may need — expected downtime, whether the call is synchronous, or any permission prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation 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 description coverage is 100% for both required params (projectId, serviceId), so the schema carries parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as accepted ID formats or defaults, which is the expected baseline when the schema already documents everything.

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 (all running containers of a service), plus the exact API endpoint. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pause_service, resume_service, and scale_service, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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 implies when to use it (you want a service's containers restarted) but gives no explicit guidance versus the adjacent operations — e.g. when to restart instead of pause/resume, or whether this is appropriate for zero-downtime scenarios. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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