reset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine scope context — what is destroyed (the timeline) and that only the FCA document is affected — but says nothing about reversibility, undo, or authorization requirements beyond the confirm flag.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope stated first and the precondition second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 destructive, non-idempotent operation with no output schema and no undoing story, the description covers the trigger and the confirm gate but leaves the meaning of 'FCA document' and the consequences/irreversibility of the reset unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the load for the single parameter. It does add meaning: the schema only marks 'confirm' as required, while the description specifies it must be true, clarifying the required value rather than mere presence.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Очищает таймлайн') plus a scope qualifier ('только FCA-документа'), which rescues the otherwise generic name 'reset'. It does not, however, differentiate against any named sibling, so an agent must infer that no listed tool duplicates this behavior.

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 only usage statement is 'Нужен confirm=true', which is a parameter precondition rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no indication of when a reset is appropriate versus alternatives like restore_snapshot or new_design, and no warning about when not to use it.

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