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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it warns that in-flight PHP requests can fail or be cut off, and that the call is asynchronous returning an event_id. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements.

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 with zero filler: the WRITE marker and action are front-loaded, the risk note follows, and the async/endpoint detail closes. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining that the call returns an event_id, plus the HTTP endpoint used. For a one-parameter async mutation, nothing needed to invoke or follow up on it 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 the single server_id parameter is already documented as the SpinupWP server id in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics such as id format or source, so the baseline of 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 (restart) plus resource (PHP-FPM) and scope (every PHP version, one server), which cleanly separates it from the sibling restart_nginx, restart_mysql, and restart_redis tools 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?

The 'WRITE:' marker and the async note imply when this is appropriate (a mutating, fire-and-forget operation), but there is no explicit when-to-use caveat, prerequisite, or guidance on choosing between this and related maintenance tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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