Reset Seals

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the reset is 'in software tracking only', which is crucial and prevents misunderstanding about physical seals. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., logs, state dependencies) or whether the operation is reversible, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and scope. No redundant words; every part adds value. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core function and important limitation. However, it could mention prerequisites like connection state or that the reset affects all seals collectively, but these are minor omissions.

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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids extraneous information. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the action ('Reset all seals') and the target state ('to unbroken state'), with the important qualifier 'in software tracking only'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tower_break_seal (opposite) and tower_get_broken_seals (read-only).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tower_break_seal or tower_is_seal_broken. While the purpose is clear, the absence of usage context or prerequisites (e.g., 'do not use if physical seals need resetting') limits its helpfulness for an agent deciding between tools.

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