restart_mcp_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool kills the process, and clarifies the respawn behavior for wrapped stdio MCPs. Yet it omits potential side effects (e.g., disrupted connections, unsaved state), prerequisites (such as permissions), or error scenarios if the process is not found. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. The explanation of wrap behavior and the fallback to Claude CLI is compact and directly relevant.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use case and the key behavioral difference between wrapped and non-wrapped processes. While it does not address edge cases like invalid names or failure handling, it is complete enough for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect, especially given the clarity of the parameter.

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 provides full description coverage for the only parameter (mcp_name), and the tool description adds no further semantic details. At 100% coverage, the schema already carries the meaning, so the description does not need to compensate. Baseline 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 clearly states the action (restart), the target (underlying process for an MCP server), and the method (find and kill its process). It implies a distinction from restart_codex_mcp_process by referencing Claude CLI and wrap_mcp_stdio, which orients the agent toward the standard MCP context.

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 explains when this tool is appropriate: for wrapped stdio MCPs the wrapper respawns automatically, and otherwise the user typically needs to restart Claude CLI. It provides actionable context about when manual restart is unnecessary versus when it is needed. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative restart_codex_mcp_process for Codex-related MCPs, leaving a slight gap in sibling differentiation.

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