users_reset_traffic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a 'reset' which implies mutation/destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects other user data, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool ('reset') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reset' entails (sets to zero? clears history?), what happens after reset, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of a destructive operation and lack of structured data, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'uuid' well-documented as 'User UUID'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the 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 action ('Reset traffic counter') and target resource ('for a Remnawave user'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the similar 'nodes_reset_traffic' sibling tool, which appears to reset traffic for nodes rather than users.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for resetting user traffic counters, there's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with other traffic-related operations in the sibling list.

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