Restart Service

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the sudo auth requirement and the system-scope constraint, but says nothing about disruption, downtime, or failure behavior for an already-stopped or nonexistent service.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core action precedes the privilege and scope qualifiers. It is terse but every clause carries 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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, declared annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, privilege requirement, and scope. Only edge-case behavior (nonexistent service, already-running state) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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% with a single documented 'name' parameter, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming-convention detail beyond the schema's baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restart a system service'), and the name/title distinguish it from the sibling service_start/service_stop. However, the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from running service_stop followed by service_start, so differentiation is only implicit via naming.

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?

'System scope only' implies a usage boundary, and '(sudo)' signals the required privilege level, but the description never states when to restart versus stop/start or what prerequisites exist. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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