mcs_restart_instance

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the restart is asynchronous and recommends a follow-up call to verify status. However, it does not specify what happens if the instance is already stopped or not running, nor does it mention potential error conditions or side effects. This is a moderate gap given the lack of annotation support.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note on async behavior with a follow-up, and a brief Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose, async nature) is front-loaded. No redundant or filler text appears.

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 that the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists (not shown but implied), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, and how to verify completion. However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., if the instance is not running), which could cause an agent to misapply it. It is functional but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema provides only a type and title, with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter accepts either an instance name or UUID, and gives examples (生存服, SMP). This meaningfully expands on the bare schema definition, though it could also note that it is required (already in the schema) or provide format constraints.

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 action (重启/restart) and the resource (Minecraft server instance). It uses a specific verb and distills the purpose into a single sentence. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on restart as opposed to start/stop/kill, making its role among them unambiguous.

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 provides explicit example usage scenarios (e.g., '重启一下XX服', 'XX服务器卡了') and a clear post-action instruction to call mcs_wait_for_status to confirm completion. While it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., for starting a stopped instance), the examples and the sibling context make the intended usage clear enough.

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