panelica_server_post_v1_server_services_name_restart

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

Annotations already mark readOnly false and idemotent false; the description reinforces with 'Mutating: changes server state.' and lists required scopes (services:restart, server:write), adding auth context beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and the metadata lines (route, category, scopes, mutating) are concise and informative. No wasteful 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?

Covers action, route, examples, auth, and mutation, which is enough to call with a name. However, it does't address the body parameter's role, expected response, or error behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Therefore slightly below 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 already describes both name and body at 100% coverage. The description adds useful example values for name, but leaves the body paramter completely unexplained beyond the schema's 'see API docs' note. Baseline 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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Restarts a specific service') and enumerates common system services, making the target clear. It is distinguishable from sibling start/stop tools by the action and service list, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with app-level restarts.

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 on when to choose this tool over sibling start/stop tools, nor any exclusions. The only implicit cue is the verb 'restart', so an agent gets no explicit decision support.

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