reset_vm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key consequence: unsaved guest data is lost. It omits other important behavior for a destructive power operation — that an approvalId may be required, whether the reset is reversible, and what state the VM is left in — so the safety profile is only partially covered.

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, action front-loaded and the destructive consequence immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive power operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary risk but leaves the approval flow and post-reset state unaddressed. It is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the vm identifier and the approvalId semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter; the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ("Hard reset a VM") and the word "hard" signals it differs from a graceful shutdown. However, it never names the sibling it is distinct from (shutdown_vm, poweroff_vm, discard_saved_state), so an agent must infer the boundary from the adjective alone.

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 warning that unsaved guest data is lost implies this is the abrupt, last-resort option, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus shutdown_vm or poweroff_vm and no preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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