pcs_resource_restart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core command behavior but does not mention that restarting a resource may cause transient service disruption, that omitting the resource will restart all resources (a potentially dangerous action), or that sudo or cluster authorization may be required.

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 a single sentence with the command syntax front-loaded and no redundant content. The phrase 'agent-dependent' is somewhat vague and slightly undermines precision, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important operational context such as side effects, prerequisites, and expected result behavior. It is especially under-specified because omitting the resource can restart all resources, which an agent needs to recognize as a high-impact action.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that omitting the resource parameter results in restarting all resources, which the schema's 'Optional resource ID to restart' does not fully convey. The connection-related parameters are already well documented in the schema.

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 ('restart'), the target resource, and the exact command syntax, and it notes the all-resources behavior when the resource is omitted. It is clearly identifiable from read-only sibling tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other state-changing siblings like pcs_resource_cleanup or pcs_resource_move.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcs_resource_cleanup, pcs_resource_enable, or pcs_resource_move. The phrase 'agent-dependent' is vague and does not clarify intended invocation conditions. The usage context is only weakly implied by the tool name.

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