Restart an app's gateway node

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the restart is queued asynchronously via daemon reconciliation, 'queued is not evidence that reconciliation finished' warns against treating the response as completion, enrolled identity and other apps are preserved, and there is a role-based permission restriction. None of this is recoverable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Queue restart...') followed by side effects, the async caveat, and the permission limit. The telegraphic fragments ('Keeps... does not restart...') are efficient and every sentence carries unique information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations already cover the destructive/idempotent profile. The description still supplies the async reconciliation model, side-effect preservation, and the operator restriction, so an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 single 'app' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the referent ('this app', 'public Funnel app') without giving identifier format or naming conventions, so it adds partial meaning but does not fully fill the gap.

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 and resource: 'Queue restart of this app's TSLink gateway node on daemon reconciliation.' It further sharpens scope by declaring what it does NOT do ('does not restart the third-party app process or install a daemon'), which separates it from the many other app/lifecycle siblings.

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 a clear when (queue a restart that daemon reconciliation will pick up) and an explicit when-not ('Reduced operators cannot restart a public Funnel app'). It does not name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of the full 5 but leaves no ambiguity about applicability.

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