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

Although annotations cover the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds real behavioral context: it names the exact state being cleared (UserPreferences.has_seen_tour, all checklist_* flags), notes that the checklist widget is re-shown, and documents the no-op outcome. This is more than the annotations convey and there is no contradiction with 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then uses clearly labelled Args and Returns sections so an agent can skim to the relevant part. Slightly verbose with embedded markup and a multi-line Returns block, but every sentence carries information.

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-flag mutation with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description supplies everything needed: what each flag changes, the no-op case, and the exact return payload shape reflecting what was reset. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is 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 description coverage is 0% and neither parameter carries a description in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It defines both flags precisely, including the side effects of each and the fact that passing only one is acceptable, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reset the authenticated user's onboarding state') and immediately scopes it to the tour and setup checklist, which distinguishes it from adjacent tools like get_setup_status or dismiss_celebrations. No wasted framing before the core action.

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?

Gives concrete user phrasings that should route here ('can we restart the tour', 'reset my setup checklist') and explains the flag combinations, including that omitting both is a no-op. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or an explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion.

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