reset_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates a destructive bulk reset ('clear all') but does not mention whether the action is reversible or if it affects other draft data. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 short sentences that state the action and the recommended usage context. There is no unnecessary fluff or redundancy.

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 is complete enough for this simple tool. It clearly states what is cleared and when to use it. However, it does not describe the post-condition (e.g., draft becomes empty), which would slightly enhance completeness. Still, given the simplicity, it is nearly 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?

The tool takes no parameters (schema coverage 100% with zero params), so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist.

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 'Clear all manually recorded picks' uses a specific verb ('clear') and a clear resource ('manually recorded picks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like record_pick and undo_pick. It unambiguously states the action performed.

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 phrase 'Use before a new draft' provides explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool. It could be more detailed about when not to use it, but the primary use case is clearly communicated.

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