restart_td

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: graceful quit, blocking wait for process exit before relaunch, and that other instances are never affected. It omits what happens to unsaved work in the project being killed, which is a meaningful gap for a restart/terminate tool, and says nothing about failure or partial-restart behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the sequencing detail and the when-to-use trigger. The parenthetical about unpinned behavior is slightly dense but every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 two-param, zero-required tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers action, scope, sequencing and trigger condition adequately. The remaining hole is the fate of unsaved project state and behavior when TD is not actually running, which an agent would want before invoking.

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 both parameters and the baseline is 3. The parenthetical '(unpinned: the registry default's)' adds modest resolution on project_path's default, but the description adds no formatting details (e.g. path syntax) beyond the schema.

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 precise verb+resource ('Quit this session's pinned TouchDesigner gracefully and relaunch its .toe') and scopes it tightly to one instance, so an agent can distinguish it from a plain launch. It stops short of naming the obvious sibling (launch_td) that an agent could confuse it with, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

'Use when TD is running but needs a fresh start' gives explicit triggering context, and the scoping clauses ('unpinned: the registry default's', 'Other TD instances are never touched') tell the agent what state to be in. It never states the negative case (e.g. use launch_td when TD is not running) or names alternatives, so it is clear but lacks exclusions.

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