Searxng Reset Settings

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

Annotations already disclose that this is destructive, idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it identifies exactly what is destroyed (the embedded user override settings.yml) and when the packaged default takes effect (on the next spawn).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, target file, and consequence immediately.

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 tool is simple, the input schema fully documents the only parameter, annotations cover safety traits, and an output schema exists. The description supplies the key behavioral effect, though it could explicitly mention the immediate-stop behavior governed by apply_now for a fully self-contained description.

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 100%, and the single apply_now parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries this responsibility.

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 uses a specific verb ("Delete") and resource ("EMBEDDED SearXNG user override settings.yml") and states the resulting effect (reverting to the packaged default on the next spawn). This clearly distinguishes it from read/write siblings like get_settings and set_settings, though it does not explicitly route to them.

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 "reverting to the packaged default" implies this is used when the user wants to discard custom SearXNG overrides, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus searxng_set_settings or searxng_get_settings. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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