stalwart_reload_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key behavior 'hot reload, no restart,' which conveys non-disruptiveness. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects (e.g., if invalid settings cause a rollback) or whether admin privileges are required. The added context is above a tautology but lacks full transparency for a state-changing operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, resource, and key behavioral trait in only eight words. Every word earns its place; there is zero fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter maintenance action with no output schema requirement, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and the value proposition (no restart). Sibling tools cover related but distinct actions, and the description makes this tool's role clear within that set.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not expected to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty properties object. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'reload' with a clear resource 'Stalwart server settings' and adds the key distinction 'hot reload, no restart' which differentiates it from a full restart and from sibling tools like stalwart_reload_tls_certificates. This is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 clearly implies when to use it: to apply settings changes on a running server without restarting. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention prerequisites, the context is clear for a zero-parameter maintenance operation. The lack of explicit alternative naming is a minor gap but not misleading.

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