reset_reward_points

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

The description discloses exactly what happens: the entire earn/spend history is deleted and balance is set to 0, and this is permanent. It also adds the auth context (Full Access Token) and goes beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by spelling out the concrete consequence, so an agent can anticipate the irreversible side effect.

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 sentences with the key consequence (permanently deletes history, sets balance to 0) front-loaded. There's minor redundancy in repeating 'permanently' at the start and in the second sentence, but the warning is important enough that the emphasis is acceptable and no extraneous detail is present.

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 zero-parameter destructive operation with a provided output schema, the description fully covers the operational effect, irreversibility, authorization requirement, and appropriate invocation condition. Nothing relevant to a safe call 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 takes zero parameters, and the schema covers this completely, so no parameter-level explanation is needed. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the operation's effect rather than input details.

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 names a specific operation (reset reward points) and precisely defines the scope: deletes the whole earn/spend history and sets balance to 0. This clearly differentiates it from sibling reward tools like claim_reward_points, unclaim_reward_points, and spend_reward_points, which affect only parts of the reward balance.

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 gives a clear condition: only use when the user explicitly asks for a reset, and warns it cannot be undone. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling reward operations (e.g., use spend_reward_points for a normal deduction), but the irreversibility warning and explicit-request condition are strong enough routing guidance.

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