aiworkhub_dashboard_task_restart

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the confirmation requirement (confirm=True), the write side effects (reconciles dead claims/blocked state in the task store, spawns a worker via process_launcher, invalidates storage telemetry), and the states it will refuse. That is exactly the mutation profile an agent needs before calling it.

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 opening sentence front-loads the action and side effect, and no clause is filler. The second sentence is a long run-on cramming prerequisite, refusals, store reconciliation, worker spawn, and telemetry invalidation into one chain, which is dense but still navigable.

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 complex three-parameter write tool with no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, eligible and ineligible states, side effects, and the recommended inspection step, while an output schema handles return values. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents task_id, confirm, and the reason note (including its 200-char truncation). The description only restates the confirm=True requirement and says nothing about the reason field, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('recover one restartable task ... and launch a worker') plus the exact states it applies to (pending, blocked, dead-processing). The 'USER WRITE' prefix and the 'restartable task' framing let an agent separate it from read-only dashboard siblings without reading a 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions (operator-initiated retry of pending/blocked/dead-processing tasks) and when-not (refuses live processing, review/finished/archived/superseded), plus one named alternative, aiworkhub_dashboard_task_detail, for inspection first. It misses disambiguation from closely overlapping siblings such as aiworkhub_task_retry_terminal and aiworkhub_task_recover_blocked_rework, which is a real gap on a list this dense.

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