bridge_restart

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint; the description goes far beyond, disclosing that other Claude Code sessions lose their connection, in-flight calls fail, the extension WebSocket drops with reconnect timing (typically <1s, capped 15s), the proxy reconnects transparently, and the call returns before the new daemon is necessarily up.

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 action, then usage rules, then a bulleted side-effects block, then the return contract. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information; nothing is padding despite the length.

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, cross-session-affecting operation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract ({ ok, pidWas, message }, ~100ms flush window) and full blast-radius disclosure. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

There is one optional 'reason' parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully; the description adds no syntax or format detail for it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restart the EasyEDA bridge daemon.' This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling (all pcb_/sch_/lib_/document_ operations), so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

States the precise trigger ('only after the bridge-daemon code itself has changed... new code loaded without manually killing the process') and an explicit exclusion ('DO NOT use this just because the EasyEDA browser extension was reloaded'), explaining why the extension reconnects on its own.

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