extensions_reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well to say that functions are restarted and that state and functions are reported afterwards, which signals a disruptive operation, but it omits whether in-flight invocations are dropped, whether the reload is atomic or can fail mid-way, and whether any permissions are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first, a clarifying parenthetical that earns its place, and a note on what is returned. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what triggers the operation, what it does internally, and roughly what comes back. The remaining gap is failure/partial-failure behavior and required permissions.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with a concrete example ('resize-images'). The description adds the constraint that it operates on exactly one instance, but supplies no additional identifier format or lookup semantics 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 specific verb ('Reload') and a specific resource ('one Extensions instance'), and the parenthetical spells out concretely what reload means: re-reading .env parameters and source, restarting functions. It is clearly distinct from the sibling extensions_list (read-only listing) without naming it explicitly, which holds it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the mechanics ('re-read its .env parameters and source'), suggesting it is the tool to call after changing configuration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the instance must already exist), and no routing to alternatives such as extensions_list for inspection.

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