reset_estop

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial fact that every call routes through human approval and that approvals are scoped to a single e-stop event. The only gap is behavior when no e-stop is latched (error vs. silent no-op), which matters for a non-idempotent tool.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, the approval invariant, and the retry edge case. The most important constraint (approval) is front-loaded before the edge case.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety-critical approval semantics are fully covered. The remaining hole is the failure/no-op case when nothing is latched, plus no explicit pointer to the `estop` sibling for the inverse operation.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly implies the target state comes from the server's current latch rather than caller input.

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?

Specific verb (release) plus specific resource (the software e-stop and any latched force violation), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling `estop` that engages the stop. An agent can tell exactly what state change this performs.

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?

States the precondition (e-stop latched, including force violations), the mandatory human-approval gate regardless of approval mode, and an explicit re-invocation rule when a second e-stop latches while the prompt is open. That is unusually complete when/when-again guidance.

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