server_restart

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the sequence — graceful stop, 10-second wait, then start — which provides a transparent view of the operation's side effects (temporary downtime, orderly shutdown). It does not cover every possible implication (e.g., player disconnect), but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 entire description is one parenthetical clause appended to a clear noun phrase. Every word earns its place, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 parameterless action with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. It explains what happens both during and around the restart, making the behavior complete and predictable.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description has nothing to add about parameter meanings. Per calibration guidance, the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Restart'), a clear resource ('the Minecraft server'), and a precise scope ('graceful stop, wait 10s, then start'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling start/stop tools by describing the full restart cycle.

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 usage context is implied by the name and the description (it is a restart, not a plain start or stop). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over server_start or server_stop, nor does it mention when not to use it. This falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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