reset_stage_profiling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important gates: write permission is required and the `profiling` feature must be enabled. It does not say whether the reset is reversible, whether it disrupts an in-flight profiling session, or whether counters are zeroed versus deleted, which is a meaningful gap for a mutating tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action and scope first and the two preconditions parenthetically trailing. No padding, nothing wasted.

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 one-optional-parameter reset tool with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, target, and prerequisites, which is largely sufficient. Residual gaps are the post-conditions of the reset (are counters zeroed? does profiling continue?) that an agent might want before calling it on a live instance.

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% and the single `endpoint` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the unix://serial:// formats and the AIMDB_CONNECT fallback. The description adds only the notion that the target must be a running instance, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+scope: reset stage profiling counters across every record on a running AimDB instance. This is clearly distinct from the read-side sibling get_stage_profiling and from reset_buffer_metrics, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 states prerequisites (write permission, `profiling` feature) and implies this is the mutation counterpart to get_stage_profiling, but never explicitly says when to use this versus reading profiling data or resetting buffer metrics. Usage must be inferred from the verb.

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