restart-application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'stops and then starts the application, applying any configuration changes,' which indicates a destructive mutation process. However, it lacks details on permissions required, potential downtime, error handling, or side effects, leaving significant gaps in transparency 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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and efficiently explain the process and purpose without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, effects, or return values, which are important for such a tool. It meets the minimum viable standard but has clear gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'uuid' documented as 'Resource UUID.' The description adds context by specifying that it's for 'a specific application,' but this does not significantly enhance the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, 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 clearly states the specific action ('restart'), the resource ('a specific application'), and the method ('using its UUID'), with the additional detail that it 'stops and then starts the application, applying any configuration changes.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'start-application' and 'stop-application' by specifying the combined action and purpose.

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 implies usage when needing to apply configuration changes to an application, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start-application' or 'stop-application' individually, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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