restart_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by stating the disruptive nature and concrete side effects: 'running workers are interrupted and every node reconnects.' It could add what the response looks like or whether the call is asynchronous, but the critical behavior is covered.

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 two sentences and every clause earns its place: the endpoint, the disruptive consequence, and the user-consent requirement. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete with respect to complexity. It names the action, gives the endpoint, warns about side effects, and mandates user confirmation—arguably all an agent needs to decide to invoke it safely.

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 input schema has zero parameters and is therefore fully self-explanatory at 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and for a no-parameter tool the baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Restart Tdarr Server', backed by the exact endpoint '(POST /api/v2/restart-server)'. This clearly identifies the tool's action and distinguishes it from sibling restart tools aimed at the UI or individual nodes.

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 gives clear invocation guidance: it is disruptive and the agent must 'Ask the user before calling this.' It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like relaunch_server, but the safety and consent context is strong and unambiguous.

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