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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value: it declares MUTATES, documents the 202 Accepted async response, and names the sibling tool for tracking the operation. That async/tracking disclosure is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the MUTATES warning, then scope behavior, return semantics, and endpoint. No wasted filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety signal, scope behavior, and the async return/tracking path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's scope explanation largely restates the schema's 'omit to restart all' note, adding little new syntax or format detail.

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 (restarts) and resource (an app's containers) with a clear scope. It is easily distinguished from siblings like scalingo_scale_app and scalingo_trigger_deployment, which perform different mutations.

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?

Explains that scope optionally limits which process types restart, and omitting it restarts everything. It also points to scalingo_get_operation for tracking, giving clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like scale_app.

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