emu_reset_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that the operation is destructive ("wipes") and scoped to "in-memory state", implying non-persistence. It also states the re-seeding behavior, which tells the agent the tool doesn't just clear state but replaces it with a topology. It does not detail every side effect but covers the key behavioral traits for a reset tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary action ("Resets or wipes") and places the secondary action after. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or redundant information.

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 2-optional-parameter tool with no required inputs and no nested objects, the description covers the essential context: what the tool is for, what resource it affects, and the reset behavior. The only gap is the absence of return value information since there is no output schema, but that is a minor omission for a reset action. Overall, complete enough for an agent to select and use correctly.

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 documents both parameters (mode and profile) with descriptions, enums, and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about parameters but isn't required to since the schema is self-sufficient. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ("resets or wipes") on a clear resource ("CUCM emulator in-memory state") and adds a secondary action ("re-seeds with a specified topology profile"). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like emu_seed_fixtures (which seeds without wiping) and emu_load_snapshot (which loads a saved snapshot) because the core action is resetting state.

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 usage: it should be used when the emulator's in-memory state needs to be reset and re-seeded. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., emu_seed_fixtures or emu_bootstrap_lab) or when not to use it. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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