trmnl_reset_mashup_health

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: it re-schedules renders and mutates remote state, and it should only be run within the user-authorized scope. It does not state whether resetting an already-healthy mashup is a no-op, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the endpoint reference and a scope warning. Four short lines, all earning their place, though the generic 'Changes remote state or starts work' line is boilerplate repeated across mutation tools.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers what the tool does, its side effect on render scheduling, and the authorization caveat. The remaining gaps are the nested path structure and the reset-an-already-healthy-mashup behavior.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the nested 'path' object carries no description while only 'id' and 'profile' are documented in the schema. The description only implicitly reveals the id via the POST /api/mashups/{id}/health_resets endpoint line; it never explains the nested path wrapper or what the profile parameter selects.

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?

States a specific verb (reset) and resource (mashup health breaker) with the observable effect: returning an erroring mashup to healthy and re-scheduling renders. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling trmnl_reset_plugin_setting_health, but the resource noun is unambiguous enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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 condition for use is clear - a mashup that is erroring or has tripped its health breaker - and the 'same as the reset link on the mashup page' analogy grounds it for a human reader. It does not name alternatives such as inspecting the mashup first via trmnl_get_mashup or trmnl_get_mashup_timeline before resetting.

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