computer_factory_reset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive action ('erase') and the restoration process, which informs the agent of the irreversible nature. However, it omits details like downtime or that all data will be lost beyond 'writable filesystem', which is slightly implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and object. Every word is meaningful, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set and no output schema, so the description is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it lacks additional context such as the irreversibility of the operation, potential downtime, or any prerequisites, which would be valuable for a destructive action.

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 schema already provides a complete description for the single parameter (computer_id), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('erase') and resource ('computer's writable filesystem'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like computer_restart (which restarts) and computer_delete (which removes the computer). It precisely states the factory reset action.

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 clearly implies when to use it (to reset a computer to its base state), but it does not explicitly specify exclusions or alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest context, but the description itself offers no direct 'use this instead of' guidance.

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