Restart service

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so mutation and non-idempotency are known. The description adds useful specifics: it returns immediately, and every call triggers a restart even if called again immediately. This goes beyond the annotations and sets accurate expectations for repeated calls.

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?

Three short sentences, all carrying distinct value: when to use, immediate return behavior, and repeated-call semantics. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most actionable guidance is front-loaded.

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 is simple with only two required parameters and annotations already cover the safety profile. The description covers the key behavioral concerns—immediate return and non-idempotency. It does not mention what happens if the service is not running or what the response contains, but the absence of an output schema and the simple nature of a restart make this gap minor.

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 0% and the description adds no information about the 'project' or 'service' parameters beyond what the schema already provides via their names and minLength constraints. Although the parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the low coverage or clarify value formats.

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?

States a specific action—restart a running Lizard service—and explicitly excludes rebuilding, which distinguishes it from any deploy/rebuild sibling. The verb+resource pairing is unambiguous and matches the tool name/title without being tautological.

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?

Clearly says to use this tool when the user wants to restart a running Lizard service without rebuilding it. It implies the alternative is a rebuild/deploy path but does not name a specific sibling tool or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the no-rebuild distinction.

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