Reload zones from YAML

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value: it names the underlying service call and the 'no full restart' effect, plus explicit error behavior (returns {"error": ...} rather than raising). Slight redundancy with the output schema on the return value, but error handling is not in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then labeled 'Use when', 'Returns', and 'Errors' blocks. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 zero-param reload action, the description covers purpose, mechanism, when-to-use, return shape, and error behavior. With an output schema present, return-value detail needn't be deeper; nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the no-arg design is implicitly consistent with the description's service-call framing. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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+resource ('Reload zones defined in configuration.yaml') and reveals the underlying mechanism ('zone.reload' over HTTP). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like zones_create_zone, zones_update_zone, and zones_list_zones.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' clause gives both triggering scenarios: after editing zone YAML, or after zones_create_zone reports YAML zones aren't supported. This directly routes the agent to this tool versus alternatives.

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