interchange_can_reset_world

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the target map asset may be 'loaded if needed' (a side effect), and it enumerates the three return fields. It does not discuss failure modes if the asset cannot be loaded, keeping it below a 5.

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 read-only nature and the routing to the reset tool, then the return shape. The 'Returns:' block is slightly redundant with the in-line enumeration of can_reset/is_editor_world/resolved_world_path, but since there is no output schema it earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only check, the description covers purpose, the alternative mutation tool, an important side effect (asset loading), and the full return shape despite no output schema. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single world_path parameter, so the schema already explains path format and that empty means the current editor world. The description restates the same resolution semantics ('the map asset world_path names, loaded if needed, or the current editor world') without adding new syntax or format detail, matching the baseline 3.

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 and scope ('Report, read-only, whether Interchange can reset a world') plus the underlying API, and names the sibling that actually performs the reset (interchange_reset_level_asset). An agent can distinguish this read-only pre-check from the reset action without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative for the mutation case ('Run the reset with interchange_reset_level_asset'), which makes the when-to-use split clear. It stops short of stating exactly when to call it first (e.g. always pre-check before resetting) or what a false result implies, so it is clear but not fully explicit on conditions.

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