reset_grades

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation resets grades (destructive), specifies scope (video track 1 if indices provided, all tracks if omitted). Could mention irreversibility or undo behavior, but adequate.

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 extremely concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers all necessary context: both usage cases (specified clips vs all) and the scope. Output schema exists, so return value documentation is unnecessary.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains the optional parameter 'clip_indices': it's 1-based, on video track 1, and omitting resets all on all video tracks. Adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's purpose: resetting grades on specified clips or all clips. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_cdl' or 'apply_drx_grade'.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to reset grades) and explains the behavior when optional clip indices are provided vs omitted. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative mentions, but sufficient for this case.

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