reload_prometheus_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the write/risk level, the no-undo guarantee, the pre-reload hash recording, and the rollback procedure, plus dry_run preview behavior. This goes well beyond a bare 'reload config' statement.

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 uses a clear [WRITE]/risk prefix, then two short sentences of behavior/rollback, followed by an Args list. Every sentence adds distinct value and the formatting is easy to scan.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core invocation needs: purpose, risk, irreversible side effect, rollback path, and parameter behavior. It does not detail the success/error response, but that is not essential for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: dry_run's preview semantics and target's meaning/default. This gives the agent enough to pass arguments correctly.

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?

The description opens with '[WRITE][risk=medium] Hot-reload the Prometheus config (POST /-/reload)', clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes this write operation from read-only sibling tools like prometheus_config_status and prometheus_tsdb_status.

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 frames the tool as a hot-reload operation and warns about irreversibility, giving the agent a clear basis for selecting it when a config reload is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as prometheus_config_status, nor state when not to use it; the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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