reset_deployment_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It labels the action as 'reset', which suggests a potentially destructive or state-changing operation, but it does not explain what exactly happens (e.g., whether it cancels ongoing deployments, triggers a new one, or side effects). This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool that modifies state.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. While it is efficient, it could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose. Overall, it is well-structured and avoids unnecessary 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's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks behavioral context. The phrase 'useful if stuck' adds situational context, but the lack of details about what the reset entails and potential consequences makes it less complete for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (siteId and serverId) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Reset' and the resource 'deployment state for a site', providing a specific action and resource. The phrase 'useful if stuck' adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deploy_site or get_deployments, but the name and description are sufficiently distinct.

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 implies usage when a deployment is stuck ('useful if stuck'), giving some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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