reset_lane_state

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds specifics about what state is affected (cooldown and failure counters) and the rationale (re-login or quota reset), giving behavior context beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a relevant usage context and example. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and what state will be cleared. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema and the operation is clear.

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 fully describes the lane parameter with an example. The description reinforces this with 'Pass the lane key, e.g. 'gemini' and a practical example, adding value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the example earns a 4.

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 identifies the action (clear) and the target (a lane's cooldown and failure counters). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lane_stats and usage_report by specifying it resets state rather than reporting or analyzing. The example 'gemini' further clarifies the resource.

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?

Provides concrete use cases: 'after you re-logged in or your quota reset.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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