Restart container

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutating nature, two-phase confirm flow, single-use token, 120-second expiry, and that the token is bound to the container. This is thorough and accurate, leaving little ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 compact (two sentences), front-loads the critical warning ('MUTATING: causes downtime'), and packs essential behavioral info without redundancy. Every word contributes meaningful guidance.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must cover behavior. It explains the two-step flow, token constraints, and mutating nature. It does not detail error cases or the confirmation response format, but for a moderately complex tool, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already describes both parameters. The description adds meaningful context about the token's single-use, 120s window, and binding to the container, and clarifies the sequence (omit token to preview, then supply token to execute). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool restarts a container, with 'MUTATING: causes downtime' highlighting its effect. It distinguishes from siblings (ping, list_containers, get_container_logs) by being the only mutating operation. The two-phase confirm flow is explicitly described.

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 gives clear context: it is a mutating operation that causes downtime, and it details the exact two-step invocation (preview without confirmToken, then confirm with token). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the warning implies it should only be used when downtime is acceptable.

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