Restart project

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly stating that data volumes and network configurations are preserved while containers are refreshed, and that containers are stopped and started in dependency order. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what is preserved, and when to use it. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool 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?

For a two-parameter operation with no output schema and low complexity, the description provides everything an agent needs: the operation, the resource scope, the non-destructive behavior, and usage scenarios. The schema covers the parameter requirements, so no critical invocation details are 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%, with both parameters already described: projectName as the Docker Compose project name and virtualMachineId as the VM ID. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('restarts') and a clear resource ('all services in a Docker Compose project'), distinguishing it from VM-level operations like VPS_restartVirtualMachineV1 and from project lifecycle tools like VPS_startProjectV1 and VPS_stopProjectV1. The resource and scope are 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?

The description provides clear use context: 'apply configuration changes or recover from service failures.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand the intended scenario.

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