reload_module_runtime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious trait: the effect is deferred until the next activation rather than immediate. It says nothing about whether in-flight requests are interrupted, required permissions, or downtime risk from releasing a live worker.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by its effect. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation runtime-mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but thin: it omits return behavior, disruption impact on live traffic, and any auth or permission context.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented ('Optional Module id; omit to reload all'). The description's 'one Module worker or all workers' merely restates that behavior, adding no format, scoping, or default 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 description names a specific action ('Releases') and resource ('Module worker'), and adds the observable consequence: the next activation loads the active revision. It is clearly distinguishable from the rewrite-domain sibling reload_rewrite_runtime by its Module scope, though it never explicitly names that 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for forcing a fresh worker load after a revision change. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing advice against alternatives such as toggling the module or reinstalling it.

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