reset_threat_actors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the reset action and mentions a confirmation message, but fails to explain what happens to existing custom actors, whether the operation is destructive, or if it is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 redundant phrasing: 'Reset the threat actors to the default set.' and 'This tool resets the threat actors to the default set.' The first sentence serves as the purpose, while the second is redundant. The Args/Returns structure is clear but adds unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given that this is a reset operation with no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't clarify what the 'default set' consists of, nor whether the operation is destructive or reversible. The output is only described as 'a confirmation message', which is vague. More context is needed 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 no parameters, so the baseline is high. The description mentions an 'ctx' parameter for logging and error handling, but this is not present in the schema and could confuse the agent into attempting to pass it. Since there are no user-facing parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'reset' and clearly names the resource 'threat actors' with an outcome 'to the default set'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'clear_threat_actors' (removal) and 'delete_threat_actor' (individual removal).

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 implies the use case of restoring default threat actors but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over clear_threat_actors or delete_threat_actor. There are no mentions of alternatives or conditions.

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