Clear configuration overrides

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds context beyond that by specifying that ALL overrides are cleared and that the config reverts to zen-config.yaml defaults, clarifying the scope and target of the destructive action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and outcome in a compact format.

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 the simplicity (0 params, destructive behavior) and presence of annotations (destructiveHint) plus an output schema, the description is fully complete. It specifies what is cleared and the resulting state, with no 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'all' overrides are cleared, which is not represented in the empty schema. No parameter-level detail is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'clear' and identifies the resource as 'runtime configuration overrides', with the effect 'reverting to zen-config.yaml defaults'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_config_override (which adds a specific override) and get_config (which reads config).

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 implies usage when you need to reset all overrides, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus set_config_override or get_config. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so guidance is only implicit.

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