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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: the restart effect on worker processes, the interruption of running processes, and the underlying POST endpoint, all consistent with the destructive hint.

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 elements: a WRITE marker, one sentence covering action and impact, and the endpoint. Nothing is redundant and the impact warning is not buried.

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-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies the source of ids and the destructive side effect, which is most of what an agent needs. A brief note on failure/reversibility would make it fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so both server_id and supervisor_id are already documented, including their lookup tools. The description repeats the id-source hint but adds no syntax or format detail 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 (reload) and resource (one supervisor job) and clarifies the effect: worker processes restart. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like runcloud_get_supervisor_status and runcloud_list_supervisors.

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?

Names the prerequisite source for the required id (runcloud_list_supervisors) and warns that running processes are interrupted, which tells the agent when this is risky. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition.

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