Restart service

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags the action as destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the approval process, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 with the main action front-loaded. Both sentences are relevant and add necessary information without 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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what constitutes a 'resolved deployment', which parameters are required, or how the identifiers interrelate. It also does not describe the outcome or effects beyond the approval wait, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only indirectly references approval_token and approval_wait_seconds via the approval flow. It does not explain the other parameters (e.g., project_id, service_id, deployment_id) or their relationships, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 action ('Restart') and the resource ('one resolved deployment'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_service and stop_service. The approval mention adds clarifying context without ambiguity.

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 gives context about the approval flow (wait for desktop approval, then resume with a token) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the verb 'restart', but no direct guidance is provided.

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