new_build

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that using this tool will clear gear, skills, passives, and config, which is a destructive action. This is sufficient behavioral transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and a clear purpose, the description covers everything needed: what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter info. It correctly provides no extraneous parameter details.

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 the clear verb 'Reset' and specifies exactly what is cleared: 'gear, skills, passives, and config.' It distinguishes itself from sibling 'set_class' by explaining the key difference, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to start a build truly from scratch mid-session') and contrasts it with 'set_class,' which keeps existing data. It also provides a recommended sequence ('new_build first, then set_class → set_level → …'), offering clear usage guidance.

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