services_restart

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known from structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path — no mention of downtime, service interruption, whether state is preserved, or what happens when the service is already stopped, which are the meaningful unknowns for a destructive restart.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the action, with no filler sentences. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: the endpoint line consumes space that could have carried the missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested object parameter, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is well short of what an agent needs. It does not explain the force flag, the outcome, or side effects, leaving the caller to act on annotations alone.

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 carries the burden, and it only partially delivers: the URL template implies {id} is the service identifier. The nested boolean body.force — the one parameter whose semantics actually matter for a restart — is never mentioned, so its effect is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Restart service"), which is unambiguous on its own, but it adds only an HTTP endpoint line rather than distinguishing this tool from related lifecycle siblings like services_goto, services_leave_rescue_mode, or services_edit. An agent can guess the purpose but gets no framing of how this fits within the service-control family.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to use a restart (e.g., versus editing configuration first). The agent is left to infer the appropriate situation entirely.

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