board_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the single most important trait — that this is destructive and gated behind confirm=true — but says nothing about irreversibility, whether columns/archived items survive, permission requirements, or recovery. That is a meaningful but partial disclosure.

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 destructive warning and the confirm precondition front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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, zero-required-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the safety gate but omits the blast radius (are columns, archived tasks, or events affected?), reversibility, and the actor parameter. Adequate for a cautious caller, incomplete for a confident one.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It instead restates the confirm semantics already documented in the schema and says nothing at all about the undocumented 'actor' parameter, leaving half the inputs unexplained.

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 ('清空看板上的全部任务') with an explicit scope qualifier ('全部'), which cleanly separates it from single-item siblings like delete_task and from archive_done. An agent can identify this as a board-wide bulk reset without opening any 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?

The destructive framing implies caution, and the confirm=true gate implies a deliberate two-step invocation, but no alternative is ever named (e.g. use delete_task for one task, archive_done to preserve history). 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.