reset_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. However, it only lists parameters and their types/defaults, without explaining the consequences of soft vs. hard reset, the meaning of 'force', or potential side effects on uncommitted changes or branch history. This is insufficient for a mutation tool that could be destructive.

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 concise: a one-line purpose followed by a compact parameter list. There is no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded. The parameter list is a bit mechanical but acceptable for a docstring-style description.

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 potentially destructive operation like a branch reset, the description lacks essential context: no warning about data loss, no explanation of soft vs hard reset, and no mention of whether 'force' can override safety checks. An output schema exists, but it does not cover behavioral side effects. The description is incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some value by providing defaults (branch_name defaults to main), clarifying that target_commit_id is numeric, and target_commit_uuid is a UUID. However, it fails to explain how to choose between the two target parameters or what 'soft' and 'hard' modes concretely do, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Reset branch to the specified commit' (Сбросить ветку до указанного коммита). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like checkout_commit, checkout_branch, and merge_branches, which involve different operations on branches.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a reset is appropriate, nor does it differentiate from checkout or merge operations. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameter list.

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