instance_restart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP POST endpoint path, which is useful context not present in annotations, but it does not disclose disruption/downtime behavior or any permission requirements.

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 endpoint path is front-loaded and useful, but the second sentence ('To restart ... you should perform a restart action on it') is a tautology that repeats the first sentence without adding information. The description would be stronger if the redundant sentence were replaced with usage or behavioral context.

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 simple two-parameter action tool with complete schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what an agent likely needs to choose correctly among many instance action siblings: expected disruption, when restart is appropriate versus stop/start, and any prerequisites.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description says only that the instance is identified by its id, adding no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (restart) and resource (compute instance), which distinguishes it from siblings such as instance_stop, instance_shutdown, and instance_start. However, the phrase 'compute instance / resource' introduces ambiguity, and the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those action siblings.

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 choose restart versus stopping and starting, shutting down, or using rescue mode. No prerequisites, cautions, or exclusion conditions are stated.

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