apache_graceful_reload

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

The write/destructive profile is already declared by annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description gets no credit for the [WRITE] tag alone. It does add two genuinely useful facts beyond annotations: the tool performs a config validation before the reload, and the outcome is not self-verifying, so an operator must confirm. It omits what a graceful reload does to in-flight connections and what a failure response looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded clause pair with zero filler; the write marker and the caveat both land immediately. Nothing is redundant, though the terse phrasings ('outcome needs operator check') push some interpretive burden onto the agent.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description conveys the core action and the manual-verification caveat, which is the minimum an agent needs to act responsibly. It falls short on parameter meaning and on the consequences of a graceful reload, which are not recoverable from the bare anyOf/boolean schema.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description mentions neither. The meaning of 'target' (which server, host, or config to reload?) and the semantics of 'dry_run' (does it stop after the config check?) are left entirely unexplained, which is a real gap given the tool is destructive.

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?

Description names a specific action sequence (config-check, then request a graceful reload) on an identifiable resource, Apache. The [WRITE] tag distinguishes it from read-only siblings like apache_config_check and apache_runtime_config, though it does not name the reload-vs-restart alternative explicitly.

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 implied usage — apply configuration changes without a hard restart — is inferable from 'config-check then request a graceful reload'. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of when a full restart is required instead, and no pointer to apache_config_check or apache_diagnose as prerequisites or alternatives.

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