gateway.restart_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool refuses by default if pending requests exist and that force=true cancels them. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond just saying 'restarts a server'. It could mention that the restart is not persistent and that the server must be known, but overall it's good.

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, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficient 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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the default behavior and the force option. It could mention what happens after restart (e.g., server comes back online), but the core functionality is clear.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default refusal behavior for the force parameter and how it relates to pending requests. This is extra context beyond the schema's 'Cancel this server's pending requests before restarting', justifying a 4.

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 tool restarts a known downstream MCP server without changing persistent config. It uses a specific verb (restart) and resource (downstream MCP server), avoiding tautology. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like connect_server or update_server.

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 on when to use the force parameter: when there are pending requests, the tool refuses by default, so force=true is needed to cancel them. It does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear.

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