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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's "put back to default" is consistent with a non-read mutation, so no contradiction. However, it never says whether the existing custom wording is permanently lost or recoverable, which is the single most important behavioral fact for a reset operation.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the prerequisite is front-loaded in a parenthetical before the action statement. It is efficient, though the parenthetical placement slightly buries the actual purpose behind setup detail.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite and the effect but omits what the call returns and whether the reset is reversible. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gaps are moderate rather than critical.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the create_workspace provenance of workspace_key. The description only reinforces that a single template (the `kind`) is affected and does not explain what values `kind` accepts beyond "Which template."

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?

"Put one reminder wording back to the Avlira default" gives a specific verb (reset to default) and a specific resource (a single reminder template wording), which implicitly separates it from update_message_template. It stops short of naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the contrast from the phrase "back to the Avlira default."

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 supplies a prerequisite ("Needs the workspace_key from create_workspace") but no explicit when-to-use versus update_message_template, which is the obvious alternative for changing wording. Usage is only implied: revert rather than customize.

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