reset_asset_flows

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says it resets to the default set but does not clarify that this likely overwrites or removes existing customizations, whether it is destructive, what 'default set' means, or if the operation is reversible. The tool appears to be a mutation with significant side effects, yet the description omits those details.

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 short but contains redundancy: the first and second sentences say exactly the same thing. The Args and Returns sections are useful but boilerplate. The tool could be improved by removing the repetitive second sentence, making it more concise.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values are covered) and there are no parameters, the description leaves critical ambiguity: it does not define the 'default set', whether this operation affects only assets and flows or related entities, or how it differs from the sibling 'clear_asset_flows' tool. For a reset operation, this level of detail is insufficient for an agent to understand the consequences.

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 input schema has zero user parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'ctx' as an argument, but it is not in the schema and seems to be an internal detail; no user-facing parameter semantics are needed. This does not detract significantly, as there are no parameters to describe.

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 action ('reset') on a specific resource ('assets and flows') and indicates the result is the 'default set'. However, it repeats the same idea in the second sentence and does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'clear_asset_flows', though 'reset to default' implies restoring a known state rather than emptying.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clear_asset_flows' or 'reset_threat_actors'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be invoked, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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