nodes_reset_traffic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Reset traffic counter') but fails to explain critical aspects like whether this requires admin permissions, if it's destructive (e.g., resets data irreversibly), what happens to the node's traffic metrics, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action and target. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity as a mutation operation (resetting traffic counters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits behavioral details like permissions, side effects, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The description does not compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding.

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% description coverage, with the 'uuid' parameter clearly documented as 'Node UUID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Reset') and resource ('traffic counter for a node'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'users_reset_traffic' by specifying 'node' instead of 'user', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other node-related tools like 'nodes_restart' or 'nodes_update'.

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, such as other node management tools (e.g., 'nodes_restart', 'nodes_update') or user traffic reset ('users_reset_traffic'). It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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