Railway MCP Server

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 effectively communicates that this is a mutation operation (restart implies state change) and provides context about what the restart accomplishes ('Applying configuration changes', 'Clearing service state', 'Resolving runtime issues'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like downtime, permissions needed, or rate limits, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections using symbols and clear formatting. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value: purpose statement, usage guidelines, exclusions, prerequisites, and related tools. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering usage context, alternatives, and prerequisites. However, it doesn't describe what happens after restart (success indicators, error conditions, or return values), which would be valuable given the lack of output schema. The comprehensive sibling tool differentiation partially compensates for this gap.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have provided additional context about parameter relationships or typical values.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Restart a service') and resource ('in a specific environment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like service_update, service_delete, and deployment_trigger. The opening line provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides explicit guidance with dedicated sections: 'Best for' lists three appropriate use cases, 'Not for' names three alternatives with specific tool names, and additional sections mention prerequisites (service_list) and alternatives (deployment_trigger). This comprehensive guidance clearly defines when to use this tool versus other options.

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