reset_query_stats

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it names the exact table truncated, states the operation is irreversible, and explicitly says no undo is recorded (important given undo_list/undo_apply exist as siblings). It also surfaces the preview path. That is real behavioral value beyond the structured hints.

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-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag and the core action, then the destructive detail, then the preview hint, then args. Every sentence carries information; there is no filler.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, irreversibility, the absence of undo, and both parameters. It does not describe what a dry_run call returns, which is a minor omission given no output schema exists.

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 carries the burden, and it does explain both parameters: dry_run ('If True, preview without resetting') and target ('Target name from config; omit for the default'). The only gap is that the accepted format/scope of 'target' is not elaborated.

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 ('Reset statement-digest accumulators') and immediately names the exact underlying object ('Truncates performance_schema.events_statements_summary_by_digest'). This is unambiguous against siblings like undo_list, undo_apply, or top_queries, which operate on adjacent but distinct state.

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?

It provides actionable context ('Pass dry_run=True to preview') and notes that no undo is recorded, which implicitly tells the agent this tool is not recoverable via the undo_* siblings. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming an alternative, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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