recommend_reset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a reset action (implying mutation) and shows 'what was previously dismissed,' adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's action and effect. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the reset action and effect but omits details like return values, error handling, or specific behavioral traits, which are important for a tool that modifies state.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents it well. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since there's only one parameter and coverage is high, the baseline is appropriate without needing extra details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Reset all dismissed recommendation scenarios' with the effect that 'recommend will detect and suggest tools again for all scenarios.' It specifies the verb ('reset') and resource ('dismissed recommendation scenarios'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recommend' or 'recommend_dismiss' beyond mentioning their relationship.

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 description implies usage context by stating 'After reset, recommend will detect and suggest tools again for all scenarios,' suggesting it should be used when recommendations need to be re-enabled. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recommend_dismiss' or 'recommend,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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