restart_service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what state is lost (in-memory state such as connection pools), but it omits the notable fact that dry_run defaults to true, which materially changes what happens on a default call.

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 sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the clarifying parenthetical follows.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain the dry_run default and the required reason/incident_id, none of which appear.

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% across four parameters, and the description names none of them. Critically, it never mentions that dry_run defaults to true or that reason is required, so an agent gets no help on the parameters that govern behavior.

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) and resource (a service's container), and the parenthetical clarifies what restarting actually does. It is distinguishable from the sibling rollback_service, though it does not name that sibling explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to restart versus when to roll back (rollback_service), or on preconditions such as confirming an incident. The only implied usage is the parenthetical example of stuck connection pools, which is a symptom, not a when-to-use rule.

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