reset_verification

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies what gets cleared ('verification data (invocation records and counters)') and the test scenario use case. While annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, the description provides specific details about the data affected, earning a high score.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it highly 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 (destructive operation with one parameter) and the presence of annotations covering safety aspects, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what data is cleared and when to use it, though it doesn't mention output behavior (no output schema exists).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('Clear verification data') and resource ('for a specific mock or all mocks'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'clear_request_logs' (which clears logs) or 'reset_chaos_stats' (which resets chaos statistics). It provides precise scope information.

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 states when to use this tool: 'to reset counters before running a new test scenario.' This provides clear context for usage and distinguishes it from other reset/clear operations by focusing on verification data rather than logs or chaos stats.

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