restart_renderer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: it can stall the UI. That is real value beyond structured fields. It still omits what 'rebuild' resets, whether it is reversible, and any permission/state implications.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the caveat. Every word earns its place; nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the core action plus a risk warning. But the lone parameter is left unexplained and there are no annotations to cover safety or state-change semantics, leaving a real gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

There is one parameter (viewer) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what specifying a viewer does versus defaulting to the 'active' delegate. The 0-param baseline of 4 does not apply because a parameter exists and is undocumented by both schema and description.

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 (rebuild) and resource (active LOP Hydra delegate), which distinguishes it from siblings like set_hydra_renderer and set_renderer_paused. It doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, but the action is 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?

'prefer not to' gives a soft steer that this is a last-resort/heavy operation, which is useful context. However, it never states when you actually should use it (e.g., delegate is stuck or invalid) or what to try instead, so the agent is left inferring the trigger condition.

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