heroku_restart

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) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this causes downtime, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, whether the restart is immediate or gradual, or what happens to in-process requests. For a potentially disruptive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that directly communicate the tool's functionality and parameter behavior with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains the parameter implication. Every sentence earns its place.

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 this is a potentially disruptive operation (restarting dynos) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like downtime implications, error conditions, permission requirements, or what success/failure looks like. For a mutation tool in a production environment, more behavioral 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by explaining that omitting 'dyno' restarts all dynos, which is already implied by the schema's 'Omit to restart all' text. No additional semantic context is provided beyond what's in the structured 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?

The description clearly states the action ('restart dynos') and resource ('Heroku app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes between restarting all dynos vs specific ones, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like heroku_scale (which also manages dynos). The description is specific but lacks sibling comparison context.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to restart dynos) and provides basic parameter guidance (omit dyno to restart all). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like heroku_scale for dyno management, nor does it mention prerequisites or potential side effects. The guidance is functional but incomplete.

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