Reset saved style-profile defaults while preserving the revision counter and leaving figures unchanged; requires the expected revision to avoid stale writes.
Explicitly reset saved defaults while preserving the revision counter. Does not modify figures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expectedRevision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the revision counter is preserved and figures are untouched. However it does not explain what the reset actually discards, why the call is non-idempotent, or what happens on a revision mismatch.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after. No filler, though 'Explicitly' adds little.
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 mutating tool with annotations, one required param, and no output schema, the description covers what changes and what is preserved, which is a reasonable baseline. It still omits the semantics of expectedRevision and the failure/conflict behavior, leaving an agent without the full picture for correct invocation.
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 0% and the single required parameter expectedRevision has no documentation anywhere. The description mentions 'revision counter' but never explains that expectedRevision is a concurrency guard or what a mismatch does, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource: 'reset saved defaults' maps to resetting the style profile, and it scopes the action with 'preserving the revision counter' and 'Does not modify figures'. It is clear enough to separate from save_style_profile and get_style_profile, though it never names those siblings 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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to the alternative style-profile tools (save_style_profile, get_style_profile, resolve_style). 'Does not modify figures' clarifies scope but is not an alternative-selection rule, so the agent must infer when a reset is warranted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.