restart_integration

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

The main behavior is disclosed plainly ('Disable and re-enable'), which is more than a tautological restart statement. There are no annotations to cover safety, and the description does not mention side effects such as temporary interruption of connected devices, whether settings are preserved, or failure modes.

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, front-loaded with the action, and the use-case context follows immediately. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists, correct invocation still depends on understanding the dry_run default and optional host, which are not addressed. The description gives a good usage signal but leaves an agent vulnerable to silently running a no-op or targeting the wrong host.

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 0% and the description does not compensate by explaining integration_id, dry_run, or host. This is especially problematic because dry_run defaults to true, meaning a call without it would not actually perform the described disable/re-enable cycle.

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 phrase ('Disable and re-enable') and names the resource ('an integration'), then gives the concrete symptom that calls for it. This separates it from siblings like set_integration_enabled, which toggles state, and restart_remote, which acts on a different resource.

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?

It clearly tells an agent when to use the tool: 'when devices stop responding but the integration still claims to be connected.' It does not, however, state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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