db_reset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds concrete behavior: the database is closed first, the file is deleted, and a fresh blank schema seeded with a DefaultProject is recreated. That tells the agent precisely what state will exist after the call, which annotations cannot convey.

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, no filler, and the safety warning is front-loaded so the agent sees the risk before anything else. Every clause carries information about scope or outcome.

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 single-parameter destructive utility with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the mechanism, and the post-state well enough to call it correctly. It omits whether data is recoverable or backed up and what happens to concurrent sessions, both of which matter for an irreversible operation.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating 'Must be true to confirm the destructive reset operation'. The description adds nothing about the confirm flag, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Factory reset the SQLite database') and enumerates the exact operations performed. Clearly distinguishable from sibling db_status, which only inspects.

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 'DANGER:' prefix and 'factory reset' framing give clear context that this is a last-resort operation, not routine maintenance. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. project_delete, history_clear) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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