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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, but the description adds concrete consequences: all sites on the server lose database access, running queries are interrupted, and the call is asynchronous returning an event_id. The event_id detail is especially valuable given there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences plus the endpoint; the write marker, effect, and async contract are all front-loaded with zero 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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the blast radius, the interruption of in-flight queries, the asynchronous event_id return, and the underlying endpoint.

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 schema documents server_id (positive integer), so baseline is 3. The phrase 'on one server' corroborates the single-server scoping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource+scope: 'restart MySQL (database) on one server'. The 'WRITE:' prefix and the MySQL qualifier clearly separate it from sibling restart tools (restart_nginx, restart_php, restart_redis) without needing their schemas.

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 establishes the operational context (one server, brief DB outage) which implies a service is unhealthy, but it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as reboot_server or when DB access loss is unacceptable. Usage is implied rather than spelled out, and no exclusions are given.

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