Akcja na procesie w tle

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

The description explicitly says stopping is a destructive operation requiring --allow-destructive, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction between prose and structured metadata, leaving the agent with irreconcilable signals about destructive potential.

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 sentences front-load the main action and add the critical destructive-stop warning without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple action tool, but it mentions a required --allow-destructive flag that is not an input schema field, and it gives no indication of return behavior. Given no output schema and a destructive nuance, more detail is needed to be fully complete.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds useful context about queue workers and the destructive-stop flag, but the flag is not present in the input schema, which creates a small semantic gap.

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 uses specific verbs ('restartuje, uruchamia albo zatrzymuje') and a clear resource ('proces w tle na serwerze'), and explicitly ties the tool to queue-worker restarts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forge_restart_service and forge_server_action.

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 tells agents when this is appropriate ('tak restartuje sie workery kolejek'), giving concrete usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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