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

It discloses critical behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the operation is DISRUPTIVE, soft restart requires a timeout, timeout_action=destroy causes a hard-stop-and-restart, ignore aborts and leaves the server running, and hard power-cycles immediately. This gives the agent enough context to understand the consequences of parameter choices.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the most important warning (DISRUPTIVE). Every sentence earns its place by explaining restart modes, timeout behavior, or the underlying API call.

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 restart tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation's disruptive nature, the soft/hard modes, default behavior, timeout semantics, and the API endpoint. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, which establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds useful nuance by clarifying that soft is the default, that a timeout is required for soft, and that ignore is the API default for timeout_action.

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 and resource: restarting a running server by stop-and-start. It clearly differentiates restart behavior from sibling tools like start_server and stop_server by describing both phases and the soft/hard restart modes.

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 implies when to use restart by explaining its disruptive nature and restart modes, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over stopping/starting separately or modifying a server. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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