restart_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Restart') which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, if it causes service downtime, what happens to active connections, error handling, or typical response patterns. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and clear scope.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens during the restart (downtime implications), what the expected response looks like, error conditions, or operational considerations. Given the complexity of restarting services and the lack of structured behavioral information, more context is needed.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (server_id and service with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Restart') and resource ('a specific service on a SpinupWP server'), with examples of services provided. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reboot_server' by focusing on individual services rather than the entire server. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'reboot_server' in the description text itself.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reboot_server' (which restarts the entire server) or other service-related operations. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or error conditions that might affect usage decisions.

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