restart_deployment

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. 'Restart a deployment' implies a mutation that could disrupt service, but it doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., downtime), or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. This efficiency is commendable, though it comes at the cost of detail.

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 complexity of a deployment restart (a mutation with potential service impact), the description is inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for safe and effective use. The agent must infer critical details like permissions, effects, and error handling.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'deploymentId' documented as 'The Railway deployment ID to restart'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Restart a deployment' clearly states the action (restart) and target resource (deployment), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'restart' entails operationally and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'redeploy_service' or 'cancel_deployment', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'redeploy_service' and 'cancel_deployment' available, there's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. This forces the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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