Reset Companion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core action (forgetting the binding) but does not specify whether the active companion process is terminated, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects on existing sessions. This leaves ambiguity for a destructive-sounding reset operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loading the action, then providing a usage condition. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage, but it leaves unanswered questions about side effects, return value, and cwd default behavior. The lack of annotations makes these gaps more significant.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage) and the cwd is optional (0 required). The description mentions cwd as the target of the operation, which adds some meaning, but it does not explain the value format, what it represents beyond the abbreviation, or the behavior when omitted.

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 specific verb 'Forget' and clearly names the resource ('project-to-Claude-session binding') scoped to a cwd. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like companion_init_project or companion_resume, and the added phrase 'fresh Claude Code companion' clarifies its unique role.

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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use: 'Use only when the user wants a fresh Claude Code companion.' However, it does not name alternative tools or describe when-not-to-use, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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