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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description earns credit for adding context beyond them: it enumerates exactly which progress fields are wiped and explicitly states the reset is reversible via the history/undo_change. That recoverability fact is the key piece an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first, then scope, then what is destroyed, then recoverability. The parenthetical list is dense but each clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness, the description covers the critical gaps: blast radius and reversibility. It is slightly thin on whether the reset is scoped to a specific child/student record and on any permission requirements, but an agent can call it correctly.

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 50%: item_id is documented, package_id is bare. The description compensates by making the whole-vs-single-item dichotomy explicit, so an agent understands that omitting item_id resets the entire package — a behavior the optional schema alone does not convey. It still does not describe what package_id refers to or how to obtain it.

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 (reset), the resource (progress of a learning package), the exact scope of what is reset (opened, listened, done, quiz and arithmetic results) and the granularity (whole package or one item via item_id). It is unambiguously distinct from get_support_progress, undo_change and update_support_package in the sibling list.

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 stated goal ('damit das Kind von vorn beginnt') implies when to use it, and it points to undo_change as the recovery path. But it never says when NOT to reset (e.g. prefer update_support_item for partial corrections) or what prerequisites apply; usage must be inferred.

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