restart_dns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the brief DNS outage, that the cache is cleared, and that the default is a non-destructive preview gated by confirm=true. It stops short of stating scope (all clients?) or reversibility, but the destructive profile is clearly communicated.

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 tight sentences: the action and its impact come first, the safety gate second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the operative behavior of the single parameter. For a one-param mutation tool the only real gap is the absence of alternative-tool routing.

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 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must supply the meaning — and it does: 'Preview unless confirm=true' explains exactly what the confirm flag toggles, which the schema alone does not.

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 ('Restart the DNS resolver') and adds the key side effects. It overlaps with the flush_cache sibling by noting 'clears cache' but never explicitly distinguishes the two, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Preview unless confirm=true' tells the agent how the call behaves by default, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like flush_cache or flush_network. Usage is only implied.

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