aem_bundle_restart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says only that bundles are restarted and does not mention side effects such as service disruption, authentication/credential requirements, whether the operation waits for completion, or what response to expect. The verb 'restart' implies a mutating lifecycle operation but provides little beyond that.

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 one concise sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly too sparse to earn a 5 because it omits contextual guidance that would make the entry more helpful, but as a concise statement it is efficient.

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?

For a mutating 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete. An agent cannot tell whether aliases and instances are alternatives, how bundleId relates to symbolicName, what happens on multiple instances, or what the return behavior is. The schema covers parameter names but not the operational context.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (aliases, bundleId, instances, symbolicName) are documented at the schema level. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, and per baseline a high-coverage schema earns a 3 even without description-level parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restart') and resource ('OSGi bundles on AEM instances'), clearly identifying the core operation. It is distinguishable from sibling bundle operations because 'restart' is a distinct lifecycle action vs start/stop/refresh, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself or clarify whether it applies to selected bundles or all bundles.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool over aem_bundle_start, aem_bundle_stop, or aem_bundle_refresh, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'restart'.

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