state_machine_sm_reset

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states resetting to initial state and clearing history, which are key side effects. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, requires permissions, or if it can fail due to non-existent machine or invalid state.

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?

Description is very concise: one sentence plus a short clarification. Every word adds value, no redundant 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?

Given 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and one parameter. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., machine not found, invalid state) and expected output, though output schema exists to cover return values. Could be more complete for a mutation tool.

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 provides only types and requirement; description adds meaning: 'name' identifies the machine, 'state' optionally specifies the target state. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the bare schema, given 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool resets a machine to its initial state or a specified state, and clears history. The verb 'Reset' and resource 'machine' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like sm_create, sm_delete, sm_trigger, etc.

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?

Description implies usage for resetting state and clearing history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sm_can, sm_state, or sm_trigger. No guidance on when not to use.

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