Restart application

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: 'This interrupts service' conveys concrete destructive impact, plus the applications:manage permission requirement and the client-global idempotency key. It also discloses that the operation is queued/asynchronous and must be polled to completion, which the annotations alone do not express.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler: identity, impact warning, and required workflow plus prerequisites. The action and its risk are front-loaded ahead of the procedural 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?

For a destructive, annotation-covered mutation with no output schema, the description covers impact, permissions, idempotency, and the follow-up polling loop. It omits failure/recovery behavior (e.g. what happens if the queued restart fails), but is otherwise sufficient to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly (orderNo format, idempotencyKey uniqueness, confirmed semantics). The description reinforces the idempotency key as client-global and the interruption confirmation but adds little the schema does not already carry, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Restart') and resource ('owned managed application'), which is enough to distinguish it from start_application/stop_application. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling restart_service, leaving a small ambiguity for an agent choosing between application- and service-level restarts.

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 operational sequence: confirm the interruption, then poll installation and events until the queued operation completes. This tells the agent when and how to proceed, but it names no alternatives and no when-not-to-use condition (e.g. vs reinstall or repair).

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