reset_world

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool backs up before deleting, that the next launch regenerates the world, and that the profile is retained. It does not mention prerequisites like stopping the server, but the core side effects are clearly stated.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The action (backup then delete) and key consequence (fresh generation) are front-loaded, and the profile retention is a useful clarifier included without padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains what happens, what is preserved, and the end state. It omits operational details like whether a running server must be stopped, but the overall flow is sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke it correctly in most contexts.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The parameter 'world' is referenced as 'a world save,' but the description doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., world name vs path). However, with a single string parameter and the tool name, an agent can reasonably infer the meaning, so the gap is moderate.

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 clear verb-resource pair: reset a world save by backing up then deleting it, and explains the intended effect (regenerates fresh with current configs). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the profile is kept, which separates it from create_world or apply_world.

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 when to use it: when you want a fresh world generated from current configs while preserving the profile. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it among related world-management tools.

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