reset_session_score

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 that only the score is reset and completed status is preserved, but it does not mention side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens if users are not found. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and the key constraint. Every word is necessary; no filler or redundancy.

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 has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and the critical nuance (preserving completed status). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to use it, though additional context on return values or error cases would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds 'list of users' but largely repeats the schema's own parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Pass each user's current completed status — score will be forced to 0.'). The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 the score to 0'), the resource ('for a list of users in a session'), and the key nuance ('preserving their current completed status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_module_progress, which may modify progress but not specifically reset scores.

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 when to use this tool (when needing to reset scores while preserving completion status), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Among sibling tools, update_module_progress could be a related alternative, but no guidance is provided.

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