restart_codex_mcp_process

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the reliability limitation, the mechanism (killing the wrapped child PID from its pidfile), and the typical failure mode for unwrapped MCPs. It does not detail side effects or whether the process is restarted synchronously, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The action is stated first, followed by the key caveat. Information density is high and every clause adds value, making it an exemplary concise definition.

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 tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, limitations, and method. It could mention what the tool returns or whether it waits for restart, but these are minor omissions given the simplicity and the existing caveat.

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 for 'mcp_name' is clear and specific ('The mcp_servers.<name> entry in ~/.codex/config.toml to restart'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, but since the schema already explains it well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('Codex CLI MCP server process'), and implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'restart_mcp_process' by emphasizing the wrapped-MCP condition. It is not a tautology and clearly conveys the operation, though it could more explicitly name the generic sibling.

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?

It provides a clear condition for reliable use ('only for wrapped MCPs') and notes the fallback ('restart Codex CLI') for other cases. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like 'restart_mcp_process' or state when to use that sibling instead, leaving some routing to inference.

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