force_reset_recovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the operation is destructive, irreversible, may reopen an inconsistent workspace, and safely no-ops when nothing is fenced.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the destructive alert is front-loaded, the action and consequence are stated crisply, and the usage guardrail and no-op behavior finish it. The length is appropriate for the risk level.

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 recovery action, the description covers why it exists, when to use it, what could go wrong, and the no-op path. The output schema existsasi and the single parameter is fully documented, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the single confirm parameter is already well documented in the schema. The tool description reinforces that the reset is destructive but does not add meaningfully new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'force-clears a recovery_required fence'. It also clearly distinguishes this from siblings like cancel_pipeline and repair_source_conflict by framing the action as an un-doable recovery gate 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?

It explicitly says 'use only to recover a stuck pipeline' and 'only after checking get_pipeline_status first'. It also specifies the no-op condition, so an agent knows when the call is unnecessary.

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