restart_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that running workers are interrupted and their files are requeued, which is the key disruptive side effect of the operation. It does not cover auth, failure modes, or response behavior, but the core behavioral consequence is clearly stated.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler: the first names the operation and endpoint, the second explains the behavioral effect. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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, one-parameter action with no output schema, the description supplies the essential information: what happens, the endpoint, and the effect on workers and files. It lacks explicit expected-response details and usage routing, but the necessary invocation context is otherwise present.

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%, and the single parameter node_id is already described as coming from list_nodes. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but because the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Restart a node process'), identifies the resource, and includes the exact HTTP endpoint. It also explains the immediate consequence, which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like restart_server and restart_ui.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as disconnect_node, update_node, restart_server, or kill_worker. The side effect of requeueing files hints at one scenario, but there is no explicit condition, prerequisite, or exclusion stated.

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