reset_consumable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the write-gate environment variable and that this is a mutation of existing counter state, but says nothing about reversibility, behavior on an invalid/unknown part id, or required robot state during the reset.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and scope front-loaded and the prerequisite following. Nothing redundant with the title or schema.

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-parameter mutation with an output schema already documenting return values, the description covers the essential operational facts: what it mutates, where the id comes from, and the env-var gate. The only gap is state/permission preconditions beyond the write flag.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'part' parameter — and it does by specifying that the value is a part id obtained from get_consumables, which is meaningful semantic guidance beyond the bare string type. It does not give the exact id format or an example.

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 (reset) and resource (one consumable counter), scoped to a single item, and names the sibling get_consumables as the source of the identifier. An agent can distinguish it from get_consumables and the other siblings without opening the 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?

Gives clear operational context: the part id must come from get_consumables, implying a read-before-write workflow, and the call requires ROOMBA_ALLOW_WRITES=1. It does not name when-not-to-use conditions or robot state prerequisites (e.g., docked/idle), so it stops short of full guidance.

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