spend_reset

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the primary effect (resetting the session spend counter). However, it gives no indication of irreversibility, side effects, or interaction with protected/audited spend, so important behavioral context is absent.

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 a single clause with the action first and the use case in parentheses; it contains no filler or redundancy. Every part 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?

For a simple, parameterless mutation tool, the description covers what, scope, and when. It could be more complete by noting whether the reset is permanent or how it affects the other spend_* tools, but those are secondary for a tool this straightforward.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing meaningful left to document. The description adds useful contextual framing (new session/budget change), which exceeds the schema's contribution.

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 states a specific action ('reset') applied to a well-defined resource ('this session's spent amount'), so the tool's function is unambiguous. The parenthetical notes the intended trigger (starting a new session or changing budget), which differentiates it from sibling spend_* tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: when starting a new session or changing a budget. It does not name exclusions or compare with alternatives like spend_protect or spend_status, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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