reset_progress

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it excels: 'DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible' explicitly flags risk, and it details exactly what is erased, what is preserved, and the required user confirmation.

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 two sentences, front-loads the critical destructive warning, and packs essential information with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the action, consequences, exclusions, and required confirmation. An output schema exists, so the absence of return-value documentation is not a gap.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the document_id parameter. However, parameter intent is reasonably inferable from the phrase 'a document's entire answer history' and the self-explanatory parameter name, which keeps this at an adequate level.

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 verb and resource: 'erases a document's entire answer history.' It also distinguishes its scope from deletion by stating 'Flashcards and quiz questions are kept,' which differentiates it from siblings like delete_document.

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 strong precondition by instructing the agent to 'Confirm with the user before calling this tool,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_document or get_due_items. The intended use is implied by the destructive/reset purpose rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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