paper_reset

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating destructive behavior. The description adds context by specifying that the tool defaults to two specific strategies and that it refuses overwrite without confirm=true. No contradiction 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?

The description is well-structured: a clear summary sentence, followed by a note on default strategies and the confirm condition, then a detailed bullet list of parameters. It is slightly lengthy but efficiently organized with 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, default behavior, all inputs, and a key condition. No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify return values or success/failure indicators. However, for a creation/reset tool, the behavior is well-explained.

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 input schema has 8 parameters with defaults but zero descriptions. The description explicitly explains each parameter's meaning and purpose (e.g., 'confirm: Required true to wipe an existing account', 'initial_capital: Starting fake capital in USD'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Create or wipe the paper-trading account'. It specifies the resource (paper-trading account) and the actions (create or wipe). Sibling tools include paper_step and paper_status, which are distinct, so differentiation is clear.

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 a key usage condition: 'Refuses to overwrite an existing account unless confirm=true.' This tells the agent when to use the confirm parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like paper_step or paper_status, so guidance on when to reset vs advance vs check status is implicit.

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