restart_adapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses key behaviors: waiting for the RUNNING state and raising InvalidStateError in certain states. However, it does not mention potential disruptions, side effects, or failure modes beyond the state error, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by bullet-pointed state behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant wording.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the critical context: state-dependent behavior and error conditions. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists, which lessens the need. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like adapter existence or permissions, but these are less critical than the state logic.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value to parameter understanding—it implies the timeout is used while waiting for RUNNING state, but names and descriptions are already well-defined in the 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 an adapter on Itential Platform.' The verb 'restart' is specific and the resource 'adapter' is identified, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_adapter, stop_adapter, and restart_application.

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 provides explicit state-based usage guidance: it should be used when the adapter is RUNNING, and it raises InvalidStateError for STOPPED/DEAD/DELETED states. This implies the tool is not for starting stopped adapters, indirectly pointing to alternatives like start_adapter, although not explicitly naming them.

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