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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the visitor-visible service interruption and the asynchronous contract (returns an event_id), which is exactly the kind of detail an agent needs before invoking a non-idempotent write.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the WRITE designation and the core action, followed by impact and return behavior. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 covers the essential: what changes, side effects, and the async return. It omits any permission/auth prerequisite, a small gap given the destructive annotation, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and server_id is documented as a positive integer SpinupWP server id, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's path template reinforces which server is targeted but adds no new format or constraint 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 (restart) and resource (nginx web server) scoped to one server, and the 'WRITE:' prefix plus the endpoint make the operation unambiguous. An agent can distinguish it from spinupwp_restart_mysql, spinupwp_restart_php, and spinupwp_restart_redis without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the nature of the operation, and the 'on one server' scoping constrains it, but the description never says when to restart nginx versus rebooting the server (spinupwp_reboot_server) or correcting other service states. The interruption warning gives a reason to be cautious but not explicit when/when-not guidance.

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