ako_restart

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the deletion-and-recreation mechanism, preview behavior without confirmed=True, possibility of traffic disruption, and expected post-restart workflow. This is strong behavioral transparency that matches and enriches the 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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into clear sections: action, result, use cases, follow-up, and safety. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 destructive restart tool with annotations and schema coverage, the description supplies all needed context: how the restart works, what changes require confirmation, what side effects occur, and what to do next. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the confirmed parameter: false returns a preview and changes nothing, while true deletes the pod and triggers recreation. This goes beyond the schema 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?

The description clearly states the action: restarting the AKO pod by deleting it, with the StatefulSet recreating it. This verb-object-resource structure is specific and distinguishes it from sibling AKO tools like ako_status and ako_logs.

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 gives explicit use cases ('Use when AKO is stuck or after config changes') and prescribes follow-ups (run ako_status, then ako_logs if not Running). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so it stops just short of a 5.

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