reset_destroy

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the effect scope by listing exactly what gets removed and states that originals are restored. But it does not clarify whether the optional target narrows the reset, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to snapshots or unsaved work.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main behavior. The Korean sentence is a redundant expansion of the English one, but it adds a useful enumerated list of affected effects. There is minimal filler.

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?

Given the destructive/reset nature of the tool and the lack of annotations, the description leaves important gaps: target semantics, safety caveats, and interaction with snapshot/restore features. The output schema exists, so return values may be covered, but the description is not complete enough for confident agent invocation.

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 single 'target' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what target accepts or what an empty default means. The parameter name alone hints that it may narrow the reset scope, but the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Remove everything this toolbox created and bring the originals back') and enumerates affected effects (debris, dust, smoke, water, particles, ocean, flag, glue), making it clear this is a reset/undo tool. It distinguishes itself from creation siblings like destroy, explode, and fire, but does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling 'restore'.

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 reset semantics imply use after destructive effects have been applied, and 'remove everything... bring originals back' gives a clear context for when to call it. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as restore or snapshot.

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