Stage Restart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the VR refusal, the exact headset message spoken, the wait-and-retry protocol, and that every listener reconnects automatically. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 core action and the manual-kill warning before the conditional VR logic. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; the run-on parenthetical asides and repeated call references make it slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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 4-param restart tool with an output schema already documenting returns, the description supplies everything an agent needs: selection logic, safety constraints, refusal/override path, and post-call reconnection behavior. Nothing material is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `now` is explained as the override for the VR refusal, `who` as "your name as the headset shows it", and `port`/`scenes` as the selectors (falling back to the only running server). It stops short of format/type details, but the semantic role of each of the 4 params is covered.

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 pair and resource ("Stop the stage server and start it again the way it was started") and enumerates the preserved configuration (scenes folder, port, host, footage folder, esbuild). Clearly distinct from stage_start/stage_stop siblings.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("after changing the server's code") and an explicit prohibition with reasoning ("never kill the process by hand... which loses the registry and the listeners"). It also spells out the VR-refusal condition, the required follow-up sequence (wait for vr_exit via stage_listen/stage_events, or ask with stage_ask), and how to override with now=True.

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