Reset a lab

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it names exactly what is destroyed (containers, networks, volumes), clarifies what persists (files in the lab folder), and describes the confirmation prompt and abort behavior. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 zero waste, front-loading the reset concept and then detailing the consequences and confirmation flow. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers destructive effects, persistence, and the confirmation workflow—everything an agent needs to call the tool 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?

With one well-described parameter (100% schema coverage), the schema already explains that 'lab' is the lab's name from list_labs. The description does not add further detail about the parameter, so the 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 specifies the exact operation (reset to a clean start) and what is removed (containers, networks, volumes) versus preserved (folder files). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lab_down or prune.

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 phrase 'back to a clean start' implies the use case for resetting state, and the confirmation step is described. However, it does not explicitly contrast against alternatives such as lab_down or explain when not to use it.

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