compose_restart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the success/failure response shape, but says nothing about downtime, whether containers are recreated, or what happens to in-flight work — the traits that matter most for a non-idempotent 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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by return format and examples — every block is scannable and none is filler. The return-format block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, costing a point.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, the definition is workable but thin: it never explains `timeout` or the all-services default, and gives no indication of restart scope or side effects. The return-format section does relieve pressure on describing outputs.

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 only partially does: the examples show that `path` locates the compose project and that `services` optionally narrows scope, but no parameter is explained. `timeout` is never mentioned, and the behavior when `services` is null (restart everything?) is left to inference.

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 — restart compose services — and anchors it to the canonical equivalent (docker compose restart). An agent can distinguish it from compose_up/compose_down/compose_ps by the verb alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts those 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?

Usage is only implied through two examples (restart whole stack via path, or a subset via services). There is no explicit guidance on when to restart versus compose_down + compose_up, nor any stated prerequisites such as requiring a running stack.

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