Restart Pod

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds substantial traits beyond them: the restart preserves machine and storage, execution is asynchronous, and the operation_id protocol governs retries so a new ID means a new operation. The timeout-then-verify-instead-of-retry advice is exactly the kind of hazard disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the most important fact (in-place, asynchronous) before the operation_id protocol, and every sentence carries real operational information. It is dense but not padded, though it could be split slightly more clearly between 'what it does' and 'how to call it'.

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 described, and the async/polling/retry lifecycle is well covered for a mutating tool. Gaps remain around preconditions (must the pod be running?), what happens to in-flight work on the pod, and when to choose start_pod instead.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains the least obvious parameter (operation_id: reuse the preview's ID or generate a UUID, keep it for confirmation and retries), but `pod` and `workspace` — including the nullable default — get no explanation at all.

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 verb and resource ('Restart a pod') plus distinguishing scope detail: 'in place (same machine, same storage)'. That scope phrase implicitly separates it from stop_pod/start_pod and delete_pod+create_pod, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operational context — it is asynchronous, so poll pods for `running`; every write needs an operation_id reused across retries; after a timeout check operation_status before retrying. What is missing is explicit selection guidance among siblings (start_pod vs restart_pod vs delete+create).

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