channels_restart

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network reach are covered structurally. The description's added value is 'keeping its pairing', which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it omits what the restart actually does to the live session (downtime, dropped messages, re-auth) and whether the operation is synchronous.

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-loaded with the meaningful clause and kept to a single tight sentence; the trailing transport triple (POST path, gRPC method, socket name) is marginally useful metadata but borders on redundant filler.

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?

With no output schema and annotations covering only the safety profile, the description should say more about the operation's observable behavior — duration, whether it is async, and what state the channel returns to. It is adequate for identifying the tool but thin for invoking a session-affecting operation confidently.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter; the schema provides only an example value and no description. The description says nothing about the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the parameter's meaning (channel id) is weakly inferable from context.

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 ('Reconnect the channel's session') and adds the differentiating property 'keeping its pairing', which separates it conceptually from channels_terminate/channels_unload. It stops short of naming a sibling or explaining when a reconnect is preferred over a terminate, so it lands at clear-but-not-sibling-aware.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The phrase 'keeping its pairing' only implies a contrast with the terminate/unload siblings, leaving the agent to infer the selection condition rather than being told it.

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