reset_reward_points

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing what is destroyed ('whole earn/spend history'), what happens to the balance ('sets the balance to 0'), and that the operation is permanent ('CANNOT be undone'). It also discloses the authentication requirement ('Full Access Token').

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 compact and front-loaded, with the most important fact ('PERMANENTLY') stated first. Every clause adds value: what happens, auth requirement, irreversibility, and usage condition.

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 parameterless destructive action, the description covers the purpose, the behavioral impact, the irreversibility, the authentication prerequisite, and the appropriate trigger condition. The output schema exists to cover return values, so nothing needed for safe invocation is missing.

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 empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the operation rather than parameters, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb ('reset'), a clear resource ('reward points'), and the exact effect: deleting the entire earn/spend history and setting the balance to 0. It is plainly distinguishable from the sibling reward tools (claim, unclaim, spend) because it describes a full reset rather than a point adjustment.

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 explicitly says to use this only when the user explicitly asks for it, which serves as a strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use gate. The irreversibility warning reinforces the caution needed before invoking this destructive operation.

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