reset_schematic

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

Adds significant detail beyond annotations: explains snapshot restoration precisely, including that the snapshot is dropped after reset (so subsequent edits establish new restore point). Describes behavior with fresh schematics (empty file snapshotted on first add_component). Notes return of reverted=false for no edits, and session-persistence limitation. No contradictions with 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?

Single paragraph is well-organized: starts with core purpose, then explains mechanics, then edge cases and notes. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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 tool complexity (stateful reverts with snapshot management) and presence of output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: snapshot establishment, reset action, return value on no edits, session lifetime. No significant gaps.

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%, with adequate descriptions for path and format. The description adds no extra meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb 'Revert' and specific resource '.asc schematic' to a pre-edit state. Distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like add_component, move_component, etc., by explicitly stating it reverts changes. Context of 'first edit this session' defines scope accurately.

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?

Explicitly states use case: 'recovery escape hatch for when a sequence of edits went wrong.' Provides context for when it applies (edits this session) and notes that it is not a substitute for version control. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but implications are clear.

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