reset_usage_limit_entity

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: the reset 'changes enforcement immediately' for that exact policy and entity. That timing/enforcement consequence is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot convey. It could go further on reversibility and what the counter returns to, which keeps 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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the action and its enforcement consequence come first, then the sourcing hint for the required id. Nothing needs to be cut.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the destructive/irreversible profile, and full parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, side effect and id provenance. Minor gaps remain around what value the counter is reset to and whether the change is reversible, but 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 coverage is 100% and both UUID parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds provenance for entity_id (comes from list_usage_limit_entities) and says nothing new about limit_id.

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 (reset) on a specific resource (usage counter for one tracked usage-limit entity), and the phrase 'that exact policy and entity' clarifies the scoping granularity. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (update_usage_limit) as an alternative, so an agent still has to infer how this differs from editing the limit itself.

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 sentence 'use the entity id returned by list_usage_limit_entities' gives a concrete prerequisite/workflow hint, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over update_usage_limit or delete_usage_limit, so the selection guidance remains implicit.

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