restart_daemon

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as potential side effects (e.g., downtime, process termination) or prerequisites. It merely restates the action, missing an opportunity to enrich beyond annotations.

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 a single, short sentence with a parenthetical example. It is front-loaded and every word contributes value. No unnecessary information.

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 simple destructive action with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and a typical use case. However, it could briefly mention that restarting interrupts service or requires certain permissions.

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 input schema provides clear descriptions for both required parameters (server_id and daemon_id). The tool description does not add any extra meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Restart a daemon') and provides a concrete use case ('to pick up new code after a deploy'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like restart_server or toggle_daemon, which have different scopes.

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 offers a specific use case example, giving some context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use restart_daemon vs toggle_daemon or restart_service), which would be helpful given the large sibling list.

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