threadmap_reset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It accurately discloses that the current thread is archived (non-destructive) and tracking restarts from a new origin. However, it does not mention reversibility, required permissions, or any other implications beyond the immediate archive, which is a moderate transparency level for a mutation 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Reset the session') followed by a clarifying explanation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and the main side effect. However, it omits any mention of return values or what happens to the archived thread beyond being archived, leaving a moderate gap in completeness. A bit more detail on the post-reset state would elevate it.

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%: newOriginContent has a description, but sessionId does not. The description references 'session' and 'new origin', which loosely maps to both parameters and reinforces their roles. However, it does not explicitly explain that sessionId is the session to reset or provide additional syntax/format details, offering only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Reset') and resource ('session'), then elaborates on the action: archiving the current thread and starting fresh tracking from a new origin. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like threadmap_fork or threadmap_track, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like 'use when you want to abandon current tracking' or contrast with threadmap_fork. The behavior is described, but there is no direct usage context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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