interchange_reset_level_asset

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

With annotations already flagging destructive/idempotent behavior, the description adds important context: the reset is conditional on a CVar and CanResetWorld, failure returns reset=false with a reason note, and no save is performed. It also enumerates return fields, which is valuable because there is no output schema.

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-loads the operation and conditions, then gives return fields. It is somewhat verbose for a one-parameter tool and repeats the return list twice, but every major clause contributes operational context.

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?

Covers precondition, failure mode, side effects (no save), and return shape, which is complete for a one-parameter reset tool whose annotations already indicate destructiveness.

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 single world_path parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the empty-string default for current editor world. The description restates that meaning but adds no new syntax or constraints.

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?

Names the specific operation (Interchange reset on a level), the underlying function, and the target selector (world_path or current editor world). It distinguishes the resource as a level rather than actors, though it never names the sibling reset tools explicitly.

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?

States a hard runtime precondition (InterchangeReset CVar on and CanResetWorld true) and the failure behavior when unmet, which is useful when-to-use context. It does not compare against alternatives like interchange_reset_actors or interchange_reset_scene_import_asset.

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