restart_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' and requires confirm=True, which is important behavior beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the specific consequences of the destructive action (e.g., service interruption, potential data loss), so it's not a 5.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the action and the key warning. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

This is a relatively simple action, and the description gives the core purpose and a safety warning. However, it lacks details on return values, prerequisites (e.g., container must exist), and a fuller explanation of what 'destructive' entails. For a mutating tool with no annotations or output schema, it should provide more context to be fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'confirm=True', adding some meaning for that parameter, but node and vmid are left undefined in both the schema and description. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Reboot/restart') and the resource ('an LXC container'), making it distinct from sibling tools like reboot_vm, stop_container, and start_container. It uses a specific verb and resource, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it's for restarting LXC containers and includes a critical usage caveat ('DESTRUCTIVE: Requires confirm=True'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'for VMs use reboot_vm'), so it falls short of a 5.

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