Restart the League Client UX

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a terminate-and-restart mutation and that readiness can be awaited, but it omits side effects an agent should know: in-flight client state is lost, plugin/CEF context is destroyed, and there is no statement of permissions or failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the rationale trailing. Nothing needs trimming.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies purpose, mechanism and use cases. It is only slightly thin on post-restart state and failure handling, which limits it below a 5.

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 both waitForReady and timeoutSeconds are already fully documented, including defaults and the 2-60s range. The description adds nothing beyond that, which earns the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb pair (terminates and restarts) and a precisely scoped resource (League Client UX / frontend CEF renderers) with the mechanism (via Riot Client). An agent can distinguish this from read-only siblings like lol_status or lol_cdp_targets immediately.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use triggers: developing Pengu Loader plugins, or recovering from a frozen interface. It does not name an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, but no sibling tool performs a comparable restart, so the routing risk is low.

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