restart_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., container becomes temporarily unavailable), asynchronous behavior, permissions required, or whether it is a forceful or graceful restart. This is minimal even for a simple operation.

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 three words, maximally concise, and front-loaded with the core action. There is no filler, and the structure is appropriately minimal for a tool with such a clear scope.

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?

The tool has only two well-described parameters and a clear action, making the description minimally adequate for invocation. However, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should ideally disclose behavioral expectations (e.g., task ID return, downtime). For such a simple operation, this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (node, vmid) with clear explanations, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 'Restart a container' uses a specific verb ('restart') and a clear resource ('container'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_container, stop_container, shutdown_container, and restart_vm by naming the exact resource type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention differences from restart_vm, nor does it clarify scenarios where restart vs. start/stop/shutdown would be appropriate. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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