restart_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses one genuinely non-obvious mutation effect: backoff state is reset. It omits downtime/disruption, whether the call blocks, and what happens if the service does not exist, which are exactly the traits an agent needs for a mutating tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource up front and the notable behavior in parentheses; no waste. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it loses a point for thinness rather than verbosity.

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?

For a mutating, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description never says what the call returns (immediate ack vs. blocking until healthy) or how failures surface. That is a meaningful gap an agent must guess at before invoking.

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 itself explains that name accepts a service name or job id and that idempotency_key replays a prior result, so the description adds nothing but does not need to. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Restart a service" is a specific verb+resource, and the parenthetical "clears backoff" disambiguates it from stop_service and redeploy_service in the sibling list. It stops short of naming an alternative outright, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 phrase "clears backoff" implies the usage context (a service stuck in crash backoff), but the description never says when to prefer this over redeploy_service, stop_service, or wait_for_service, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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