Restart Node.js application

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it does not rebuild or redeploy, it is a no-op for static sites, and it returns success even when there is no server process to restart. That last detail is especially useful and not predictable from the schema or annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: it leads with the core action, then covers scope limitations and edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, with no repetition or filler.

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 simple two-parameter operation with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, when it is ineffective, and what happens in the edge case where no process exists. An agent has the information needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema descriptions are minimal ('username parameter'), but the description is not responsible for compensating when formal coverage is already complete.

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 a specific action ('Restarts the Node.js server process for the website') and explicitly distinguishes itself from build/deploy operations ('Does not rebuild or redeploy the application'). This makes it easy for an agent to tell it apart from deployment and build siblings like hosting_deployJsApplication and hosting_startNode_jsBuildV1.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: applying environment/config changes or recovering a hung application. It also explicitly states when not to use it — static front-end apps have no server process, so restarting has no effect. This is strong usage direction with clear exclusions.

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