reset_transaction_buffer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: that redo history and the human's entries are wiped too, that open transactions are dropped, and that edits remain but become non-undoable. It also describes the return payload, far beyond the safety profile in the annotations.

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 'IRREVERSIBLE' warning is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (scope of wipe, non-reversion, usage conditions, alternative). No filler.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description inline-documents the return object (success hardcoded, undo_count_before, undo_count_after=0), and it fully covers the destructive, irreversible behavior. Nothing needed to call this 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% and the single 'reason' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any syntax or format detail for the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource with scope: 'wipes the editor's ENTIRE undo AND redo history... and drops any open transaction.' It explicitly clarifies what it does NOT do ('does not revert anything'), which distinguishes it from the siblings undo/undo_multiple named in the text.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('reclaim memory after a huge batch, or when a corrupt buffer is causing trouble') and when-not, plus a direct alternative ('to undo work use undo/undo_multiple'). Nothing is left to inference.

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