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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses two critical behaviors: that it overwrites progress (destructive side effect) and requires explicit confirmation via confirm:true. This goes beyond the basic schema and provides essential safety information.

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 exceptionally concise, using a single bilingual phrase plus parenthetical to convey the essential information. It is front-loaded with the action "Start over" and wastes no words.

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 simplicity of this reset tool and complete parameter descriptions in the schema, the description plus schema provides adequate context. It could mention the return value or what exactly happens after reset, but the core behavior (overwrites progress, requires confirm) is fully covered.

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 all three parameters (seed, confirm, player_code) individually described. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb phrase "Start over" (重开一局) and explicitly notes it overwrites current progress, differentiating it from sibling tools like fishing_play or fishing_save_info.

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 context for usage: it overwrites progress and requires confirm:true. This implies it should be used when intentionally discarding current progress. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the conditions are clear enough.

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