reset_processors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive to processor attachment ('without detaching them') and that it clears 'accumulated state and outputs.' However, it doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, whether it affects running data streams, or what the return value looks like. With no annotations and no output schema details in the description, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides usage context. Efficient and well-paced.

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?

There is an output schema present, and only one simple parameter, so the description's job is light. It covers purpose, usage timing, and behavioral effects adequately. The only gap is not disclosing side effects on active streams or whether this is safe mid-stream, but for a reset tool with a simple session_id parameter, this is reasonably complete.

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 100% and there's only one parameter (session_id), which is well described in the schema itself. The description adds minimal beyond that — the session_id parameter is self-evident given the tool name. Description doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb clearly ('Clear accumulated processor state and outputs') and specifies the resource ('processors'). It distinguishes itself from detach operations by noting 'without detaching them.' It reads coherently among siblings like detach_processor and clear_events, though it doesn't explicitly name a differentiating sibling alternative.

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 description gives two clear usage contexts: 'between experimental blocks' and 'after a replay seek,' explaining why (so a rolling window does not straddle the discontinuity). This provides clear context for when to use it. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the use cases are specific enough.

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