services_restart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It only says 'Restart a service,' and the 'confirm: Required' hint implies a safety gate, but the description does not disclose that restarting likely interrupts the service, requires administrative permission, or could fail if the service is not running.

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 very short, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. The Args block is compact, though the confirm entry is under-specified.

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 potentially disruptive service-restart operation with no annotations, the definition is incomplete: it omits when to use this tool, what happens when invoked, and the semantics of the required confirmation. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but not the behavioral and usage context an agent needs.

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 needed to explain the parameters. It adds only 'service: Service name' and 'confirm: Required'; the meaning of confirm, such as what is being confirmed and why it is needed, is not explained. Calling confirm 'Required' is also misleading because the schema lists only service as required and gives confirm a default of false.

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 states the action and object ('Restart a service'), so an agent can understand the core purpose. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and gives no scope, such as which service lifecycle stage this covers or how it differs from services_start and services_reload.

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 about when to use services_restart versus the sibling lifecycle tools such as services_start, services_stop, services_reload, or services_watchdog. The confirm argument hints at a required gate, but no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are described.

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