restart_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action (restart) but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's destructive (likely yes, as it stops and starts), potential downtime, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first defines the action, and the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 is a mutation (restart) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, permissions, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking.

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%, with the parameter 'uuid' fully documented in the schema (including description, pattern, and type). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without 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 a service') and the mechanism ('by stopping and starting it again'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'restart_application' or 'start_service/stop_service', which would require mentioning it's for services specifically (though implied by the name).

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 implied usage context ('useful for applying configuration changes or recovering from issues'), which gives general guidance on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'start_service' or 'stop_service' for partial operations, leaving some ambiguity.

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