rollout-restart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Restart' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what 'restart' entails (e.g., whether it triggers a rolling restart, recreates pods, or causes downtime). It also omits critical information like required permissions, side effects (e.g., temporary service disruption), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Restart a deployment') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation affecting deployments) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'restart' means behaviorally, what the expected outcome is, or any error handling. For a tool that could disrupt services, more context on safety and effects is needed to guide proper use.

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 fully documents both parameters ('deployment' as required name, 'namespace' as optional with default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't clarify parameter relationships, constraints, or examples. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high, but adds no extra value.

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') and target resource ('a deployment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'rollout-history' and 'rollout-status' by focusing on the restart action rather than viewing history or status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mutation tools like 'scale-deployment' or 'set-image' that also affect deployments.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., deployment must exist), when not to use it (e.g., during critical operations), or how it differs from similar tools like 'scale-deployment' (which might achieve similar results through scaling to zero then back up). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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