restart

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it waits for catch-up, defaults to a dry-run, requires confirm=true to execute, is gated by policy, recorded in audit log, and never touches keys. It also differentiates behavior for RPC nodes vs voting validators.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then specifies behavior for node types and dry-run/confirm flow. No extraneous words.

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 (two node types, dry-run vs execution, policy gating, audit logging) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it behaves, parameter semantics, and safety guarantees. It is fully complete.

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 must add meaning. It explains that 'name' is the node to restart, and 'confirm' defaults to false, enabling a dry-run that returns the plan and policy preflight. This clarifies the parameters' roles beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool restarts a node and waits for catch-up, distinguishing between RPC nodes and voting validators with different methods. It also explains the dry-run default versus actual restart with confirm=true. This is specific and distinguishes it from other tools.

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 explains when to use the tool (restarting nodes), the dry-run default, and the need to pass confirm=true for an actual restart. It mentions policy gating and audit logging, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like upgrade or plan_node_upgrade, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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