reset_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('clear all stored upstream OAuth tokens') and a key non-effect ('without touching PS consent state'). This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's impact, though it omits irreversibility details and any return value.

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 first two sentences are concise and purposeful. However, the third line 'Currently added resources: no resources added yet' is irrelevant and confusing, appearing to describe system state rather than the tool. This extraneous sentence detracts from the overall structure.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage, and a behavioral nuance. However, it lacks parameter semantics, does not mention what the tool returns (if anything), and includes the confusing 'no resources' statement, leaving the description incomplete in key areas.

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 schema has a single required 'resource' string with no description (0% coverage). The description only says 'for a resource,' adding minimal meaning. It does not explain what a resource is, how to specify it, or point to related tools like find_resources. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter guidance.

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 tool's action: 'Clear all stored upstream OAuth tokens for a resource.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like find_resources, add_resource, or invoke, which deal with resource management or operations rather than token resets.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use: 'Use during testing to force a fresh upstream OAuth flow without touching PS consent state.' This clarifies the intended scenario (testing) and what outcome to expect, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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