reset_activity

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds specific context the annotations cannot: what is destroyed ('the work done in it') and the resulting state (initial network). This tells the agent the reset is scoped to activity content rather than, say, the file itself.

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?

A single sentence with the action and consequence front-loaded; there is no filler, and the destructive effect is stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the destructive behavior is disclosed. The only gap is the precondition around activity state (e.g., whether it must be unlocked or a simulation must be stopped), which is left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or selection input is needed.

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 (the open activity) with a concrete outcome (returns to initial network state). It distinguishes itself implicitly from new_network/open_network/unlock_activity, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'the open activity' merely implies a precondition that an activity is loaded; the agent must infer the rest from the sibling list.

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