reset_progress

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: it flags the operation as destructive, explains the concrete consequence (done and manual organization forgotten, all tracks back in the pool, percentage to 0), and enumerates what is NOT affected.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive warning and severity, followed by scope and then the confirm protocol. The separate Args block partially restates the confirm guidance already given in the body, a small redundancy but not a real distraction.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, it supplies everything an agent needs: severity, exact blast radius, non-affected systems, user-consent protocol, and dry-run behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter, and it does: confirm=true only after user agreement, confirm=false is a dry-run that reports what would be cleared. It leaves the default value (false) implicit rather than stated outright.

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 ('forgets which tracks are organized') and immediately bounds the scope: only progress is cleared, while drafts, cache and Spotify are untouched. That explicit boundary is what separates it from the sibling forget_my_data.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Ask the user first') and a safe alternative path ('with confirm=false it only says what would be cleared'), so an agent knows both when to call it and how to probe before committing.

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