restart_interface

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that it is a state-modifying action, requires confirmation, and details the dual behavior (impact analysis vs. execution) based on the confirm parameter.

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 well-structured with a clear header, warnings, and a parameter list. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and output (impact analysis), even though an output schema exists. No gaps remain.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains all three parameters: device, interface, and confirm. It adds meaning by stating the interface format example and that confirm must be explicitly true to execute.

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 tool's purpose: 'Restart (bounce) a network interface.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools (e.g., check_interface, ping_device) by specifying a state-modifying action that restarts an interface.

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 explicitly requires explicit confirmation, explains the behavior when confirm is false (impact analysis), and sets clear usage conditions. It does not directly name alternatives but the sibling context provides differentiation.

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