Restart application

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds valuable context: it restarts containers without rebuilding, which implies a potentially brief downtime (not stated, but the nature of restart is clear). It also discloses it returns a deployment uuid to follow, which is a behavioral trait not in annotations or schema. No contradiction. The description carries the burden well given annotations exist.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and its limits, the second states the return value and how to use it. Every word earns its place, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description tells the agent exactly what to expect (a deployment uuid) and how to proceed (follow with get_deployment). It explains the difference from deploy, which is the main contextual gap. It does not mention potential failure modes or prerequisites (e.g., application must exist), but those are likely inferred from the parameter description. Overall, adequate for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and fully explains the 'application' parameter (uuid, exact name, or unique part). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles semantics completely.

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 states a specific verb ('Restart') and resource ('an application's containers'), and clarifies the scope ('without rebuilding'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like deploy, start_application, and stop_application by noting the change mechanism (runtime env vars vs build-time changes). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('picks up runtime env var changes') and when not to ('build-time changes need deploy'), providing a clear decision rule against the most likely alternative. It also guides the follow-up action (use get_deployment with the returned uuid). It does not explicitly mention other siblings like restart_service, but the core distinction is covered. Would be a 5 if it named restart_service as an alternative for service-level restarts.

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