auth_reset_guard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. For a security-sensitive mutation that disables a protective mechanism, an agent needs to know about authorization requirements, whether the reset is permanent or temporary, and what side effects follow — none of which appear.

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 short phrase with zero filler, front-loading the action and target. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 explained. But for a zero-param, annotation-free mutation that resets a risk-control guard, the description omits the critical context an agent needs: authorization prerequisites, when this should be invoked, and consequences of the reset.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description does not need to add anything here.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: manually clearing/releasing the risk-control circuit-breaker (guard) state. It is clearly distinct from sibling auth tools like auth_login and auth_status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or state the scope of what the reset affects.

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 word '手动' (manually) faintly implies use when automatic recovery has not occurred, but no explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or alternative (e.g., checking state via auth_status first) is given. An agent cannot confidently decide when this action is warranted versus waiting.

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