reset_all_servers

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 states the action and return format but does not disclose reversibility, prerequisites, authorization needs, or side effects of disabling all servers. For a bulk mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise, with one clear sentence for the action and a single line for the return format. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 low complexity (0 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and expected return. Minor gaps exist in behavioral detail, but these are arguably covered under transparency. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's primary function.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is trivially complete. The rubric gives a baseline of 4 for zero-param tools, and there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to overcome.

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 a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('all currently enabled MCP servers'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'disable_server' which targets a single server. The phrase 'company reset functionality' adds context, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage through 'company reset functionality' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like disable_server. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage implicit rather than explicit.

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