server

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., disconnecting sessions), permissions required, or reversibility of the restart. 'Manage' implies control but lacks detail about what the restart entails or what the agent should expect.

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 fairly concise, but the inclusion of a code block for allowed_args_for_action is slightly redundant and interrupts flow. The main sentence is short, and the argument list is helpful. Overall, it earns its place without being verbose.

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 one action and one optional reason, so the description covers the main inputs. However, it omits any description of the output schema (though present) and ignores behavioral context like whether the restart is disruptive. The main description is vague; a clearer statement like 'Restart the MCP server' would improve completeness.

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 schema has no descriptions for properties (0% coverage), so the tool description must clarify parameter meanings. It explains that 'action' is the server action ('restart') and 'reason' is optional. This adds some value beyond the raw schema, but it largely restates the parameter names and schema constraints (const, default).

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 states 'Manage the MCP server' and then specifies the action 'restart', making it clear the tool is for restarting the server. It is distinct from sibling tools (e.g., create_linkedin_post, job) which handle content or career data. However, the verb 'Manage' is somewhat broad; the intent is clearer after reading the argument details.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of exclusions. The description only defines the action and parameters, not the context in which restarting the server is appropriate.

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