Mhs Reset

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

Annotations already declare the operation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), lowering the bar. The description contributes the useful fact that recovery requires separate authorization, but says nothing about preconditions, expected state before/after, or the replay/receipt behavior that matters for safe retries.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the dual behavior is stated up front. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than excess.

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 a full output schema and rich annotations, the description needn't cover returns or safety, and the two modes plus the authorization caveat are present. Still, for a device-mutating reset it omits prerequisites and state assumptions, so it is only minimally complete.

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% and the enum itself explains that 'estop' latches output off while 'soft' requires host authority, so the description adds nothing beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific action and object ('latch a simulated emergency stop' / 'perform recovery') so its purpose is inferable, but the framing sits awkwardly against the tool name 'reset' and the description gives no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as mhs_read, mhs_write, or mhs_discover. An agent can guess this is the estop/recovery control for an MHS simulator, but only after cross-reading the name and schema.

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?

'Separately authorized recovery' implies that one branch requires host authority, hinting at when the soft path applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative. The mode enum carries the selection logic rather than the description, leaving usage only implied.

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