delegate_reset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the operation resets the session and clears context, which is the core effect. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether ongoing tasks are interrupted, if the reset is idempotent, or if any data is permanently lost beyond conversation state). This is a moderate disclosure, sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary action and scope; the second explains the consequence. The information is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is reset and the resulting state. It does not describe the return value, but for a reset action this is minor. The tool's scope (specific vs. all) is explicit, and the connection context is stated. Adequate for an agent to call it 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?

The schema description for the 'agent' parameter already covers the semantics completely (specific agent vs. all agents). Since schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no additional value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies 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 clearly states the action ('Reset the active conversation session'), the target (specific agent backend or all agents on this connection), and the effect (fresh conversation, clean context). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delegate_task and delegate_ask by focusing on reset behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly defines when to use it: when a session reset is needed, either for one agent or all agents. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like delegate_sessions (likely for listing) or agy_reset (similar but for a different backend), but the scope is clear. The absence of explicit exclusions is a minor gap given the sibling context.

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