liara_restart_mail_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Restart' implies a mutation operation that may cause downtime or service interruption, but the description doesn't clarify these effects, required permissions, rate limits, or expected outcomes. For a potentially disruptive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's arguably too brief for a tool that performs a potentially disruptive operation, as it omits critical context that would help the agent use it correctly. While not wasteful, it prioritizes brevity over completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation on a server with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., downtime, permissions), usage context, and expected outcomes. For a restart tool in a suite with start/stop alternatives, this leaves the agent under-informed about when and how to invoke it safely.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'mailId' documented as 'The mail server ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Restart a mail server' clearly states the action (restart) and target resource (mail server), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like liara_start_mail_server or liara_stop_mail_server, nor does it specify what 'restart' entails (e.g., graceful vs. forced, downtime implications). The purpose is clear but lacks specificity and sibling distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the mail server must exist and be running), when restart is appropriate versus start/stop, or what scenarios warrant its use. With sibling tools like liara_start_mail_server and liara_stop_mail_server available, this omission leaves the agent without context for selection.

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