VPS_restartProjectV1

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: preserves data volumes and network configurations, and refreshes containers. This informs the agent about safety (non-destructive to persistent data) and scope. However, it does not mention potential downtime or prerequisites.

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 concise with two sentences in the first paragraph explaining the operation, and a short second sentence for use cases. Every sentence is informative with no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values but covers the operation and intended usage. It implicitly requires a virtual machine and project but does not explicitly state prerequisites. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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% with descriptions. The description adds validation context for 'projectName' (alphanumeric, dashes, underscores) beyond the schema. 'virtualMachineId' is not further elaborated, but overall the description adds value beyond 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 ('restarts') and the resource ('all services in a Docker Compose project') with specific behavior ('stopping and starting containers in correct dependency order'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like VPS_startProjectV1 and VPS_stopProjectV1 by focusing on restarting.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this to apply configuration changes or recover from service failures.' This provides clear use cases but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like VPS_startProjectV1 or VPS_stopProjectV1.

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