budget_reset

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses the return values on success and failure, the guard requiring confirm='yes', and the effect of resetting counters while preserving ceiling. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences front-load the purpose and return value, then address the error case, and finally give when-to-use advice. No unnecessary 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 operation's effect, return values, failure mode, and usage timing. It lacks details on permissions or side effects beyond the reset, but for a simple administrative tool this is adequate. No output schema exists, so return values are described.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description largely repeats the schema for agent_id and confirm. It adds context about the confirm guard preventing accidental resets, but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 verb 'reset' and the resource 'all agent spend counters to zero while preserving the ceiling.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like budget_spend and budget_set_ceiling by specifying the scope and effect.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Do not reset mid-task if other agents are actively spending — use only at the start of a new task cycle or after all agents have finished.' It also recommends calling budget_status before and after. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to alternative tools, but the guidance is clear for a reset tool.

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