reset_site_permissions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it attempts restoration, handles manual_recovery records, and on unsupported restoration it preserves prior settings and stops automatic retries. This goes beyond the annotations and explains side effects and failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action ('Attempt to restore matching temporary site-permission leases now'). Each sentence adds distinct information: scope, parameter constraints, failure behavior, and guidance. Slightly dense but no wasted 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what it resets, how to scope it, and what happens on unsupported restoration. The only gap is session_id semantics, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of 'origin' and 'permission' (omitting both resets all leases; origin only http/https), but it doesn't explain 'session_id' at all. The description adds meaning for two of three parameters, but the third remains undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('reset') and resource ('temporary site-permission leases'), and clarifies scope ('for the selected browser'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'manual_recovery records' and 'automatic retries', which are not present in sibling names like set_site_permission. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 conditions: 'Omit origin and permission to reset every lease for the selected browser; origin accepts only http/https.' It also explains when not to use it: 'Unsupported restoration preserves the prior setting... stops automatic retries. Resolve that cause before another explicit reset.' This is clear context, though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.

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