resource_restart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's real contribution is the isolation guarantee ('the other resources are not touched') and the prerequisite that the stack must be running. It does not disclose downtime, whether the restart blocks, or how failures surface, and the rebuild/restart ambiguity is left unresolved.

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?

Three short sentences: behavior and scope first, prerequisites second, environment caveat last. No filler and nothing requiring the reader to scan backward.

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-parameter, non-destructive-per-annotations mutation with no output schema, it covers what the agent needs to call it: the resource naming source, the running-stack prerequisite, and the isolation guarantee. Only the restart-versus-rebuild ambiguity and post-call behavior remain unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding provenance for `resource` ('Names come from `resource_list`') and a condition for `projectPath` (only when the MCP server is not running from the project root). That conditional framing genuinely clarifies when the second parameter matters, beyond the schema's generic 'absolute path' text.

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 a bounded resource ('Restart one running resource in the stack') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('the other resources are not touched'). It also names the sibling that supplies the resource names (`resource_list`), so an agent can distinguish it from stack-level siblings like `up`/`down` without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the key precondition explicitly ('It needs a running stack: start one with `up`') and routes name discovery to `resource_list`, which is real guidance rather than inference. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., restart vs. full stack restart, or when the resource is already stopped), and the '(or trigger its rebuild)' parenthetical muddies which behavior is selected.

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