remnawave_nodes_restart_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'mutation', which hints at state change but does not disclose potential impacts like service disruption, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 extremely short (6 words), which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks substance to be considered efficient; it is incomplete rather than concise.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the purpose of parameters or the effect of the mutation, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool 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 coverage is 0% (none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description provides zero information about parameters. It does not explain 'payload', 'confirmToken', 'responseMode', or 'mutationApproved', which are critical for correct invocation.

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 'Remnawave nodes.restart_all (mutation)' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, adding only the label 'mutation'. It lacks a clear verb+resource statement like 'Restarts all nodes'. It minimally distinguishes from siblings like 'remnawave_nodes_restart' by implying 'all', but does not explicitly state the scope.

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 information on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remnawave_nodes_restart' (single node) or 'remnawave_nodes_disable'/'remnawave_nodes_enable'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this operation is appropriate.

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