restart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the cascade to 'affected dependents.' It omits the confirmation-token workflow (a one-shot token tied to a resolved plan), permission requirements, and reversibility, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse to the point of omitting needed prerequisites, but the structure itself is clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the cascade detail is a plus. But for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should have covered the plan/confirmation prerequisite and at least gestured at safety, which it does not.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents runtime, selectors, and confirmation_token thoroughly, setting the baseline at 3. The description's mention of 'resolved application plan' loosely aligns with confirmation_token but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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 verb 'restart' and resource 'selected services' are stated explicitly, along with the scope of 'affected dependents.' However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like reload, start, or stop, which an agent could reasonably confuse for a restart.

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 choose restart over reload/start/stop, nor any statement of prerequisites. The reference to a 'resolved application plan' and the required confirmation_token imply a prior plan step, but the description never says a plan/confirmation flow is required first.

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