actiond_server_restart

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

Discloses important behavior: the ACTIOND_MCP_ALLOW_LIFECYCLE=1 gate, refusal with a clear error, default protection of in-flight jobs, and the force=true side effect of interrupting executing jobs. This is strong transparency and does not contradict the annotations since restart is not marked read-only and destructiveHint=false is consistent with not deleting persistent data.

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 a bit longer than necessary but every sentence conveys essential information: the action, the gate requirement, the default safeguard, the force override, the use case, and the return envelope. It is structured logically and not redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return shape: an action/changed/running/message envelope with combined stop/start output. It also gives the environment prerequisite and relevant sibling distinction, making the context sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 single parameter 'force' is fully described in the schema and further clarified in the description: without it, pending/running jobs cause refusal; with it, the restart proceeds and interrupts those jobs. Schema coverage is 100% and no enums or nested objects add ambiguity.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Restart' and the resource 'ActionD server daemon'. It also explicitly differentiates this tool from the plugin reload sibling by saying plugin manifest changes only need actiond_plugins_reload, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: use it to pick up server-level changes, and use actiond_plugins_reload for plugin manifest changes. It also explains the environment variable requirement and default behavior with pending jobs, so when and when not to use the tool is clear.

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