reset_simulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key side effects: cache clearing/rebuilding is not HIP-undoable, and permission failures return structured warnings. It also mentions the force-reset gating conditions, adding transparency about what triggers the destructive path. However, it does not fully explain consequences like losing current simulation state in general terms.

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 tightly-packed sentences; the first states purpose and the second details procedural and side-effect behavior. No wasted words, and the structure front-loads the essential verb.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior, side effects, and failure modes. It could be more complete by explaining success indicators and what 'owned simulation' means, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke safely.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only implicitly covers reset_frame via 'move to reset frame'. The required parameters ctx and dop_path are not explained, leaving the agent to guess their intended values. A DOP reset tool's key identifiers deserve explicit mention.

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 opens with 'Timeline-first reset of DOP simulation', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like step_simulation or get_dop_object. It also names the module and NO_UNDO flag, reinforcing the operation's scope.

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 by describing the reset procedure, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling tools like step_simulation are not referenced, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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