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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing exactly what survives ('records and alarms stay stored'), what marker is left ('the agent carries rebaselined_at'), and that the reset writes a rebaseline alarm naming the erased score/band. It also states the authorization prerequisite: confirm=true plus the human's explicit go-ahead.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the motivating condition, then the irreversible consequences, then the confirmation gate — a sensible ordering for a destructive tool. Five dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile, letting the description focus on consequences and prerequisites — which it does thoroughly. The remaining shortfall is the unstated mapping between service_name and the target agent.

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 only 33%; the description clarifies the meaning and necessity of confirm ('Requires confirm=true') and that the operation targets a single agent. However, it never ties service_name to the agent being reset, which is the single most important ambiguity in a 3-parameter destructive tool, and the 30-run relearn window is not exposed as a parameter.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Forget one agent's learned baseline and score and relearn from its next 30 runs.' The scope ('one agent'), the effect (baseline erased, relearn over 30 runs) and the distinguishing framing from generic key/webhook siblings are all clear without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the intended trigger: behavior changes like a new model or new task that left the agent permanently deviating. That implicitly excludes transient/unintended drift, though the description never says so outright or points to an alternative (e.g. adjusting the scoring key or thresholds) for cases that don't warrant a reset.

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