restart_ako

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact blast_radius contents returned by the dry-run (context, namespace, pod name/uid/phase/restarts, Ingresses whose programming pauses), the uid precondition guaranteeing the measured pod is the deleted one, and the explicit refusal cases (pod already terminating, unreadable pod or Ingress list). It also warns of brief traffic disruption.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation class and verb, then the mechanism, then the safety workflow. A few clauses (the uid precondition parenthetical) are dense but each earns its place; no filler or repeated restatement of the name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the dry-run return payload. Refusal conditions, follow-up tools, and the irreversibility/traffic note are all present, so an agent has everything needed to call this destructive tool safely.

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% and the confirm parameter is already documented as the dry-run gate, so the description mostly reinforces what the schema says rather than adding new semantics. It does usefully connect confirm=False to the concrete blast_radius payload, but the deprecated `confirmed` alias is left to the schema.

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+resource ('Restart the AKO pod') and immediately explains the mechanism ('by deleting it — its StatefulSet recreates it'), which distinguishes it from the read-only siblings like get_ako_status and get_ako_logs. The [WRITE] tag front-loads the operation class.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('AKO is stuck or after config changes'), explicit follow-ups ('Run get_ako_status afterwards, and get_ako_logs if the pod is not Running'), and a strong when-not/safety rule ('Do not set confirm=True on your own because the user asked earlier'). The preview-then-confirm workflow is spelled out as a required sequence.

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