common-reset-item-field

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write. The description contributes nothing further — it does not explain what an existing field value is replaced with, whether the change is reversible, or whether a publish is required, which is the most important missing behavioral context for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. The terseness is appropriate in form even though it leaves substance unaddressed.

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 destructive, zero-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should explain what reset semantics are and what the agent risks losing. It omits all of this, leaving the most consequential aspects of the operation undocumented.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The phrase "names, fields or template fields" loosely maps to the name/includeStandardFields parameters but adds no syntax, wildcard behavior, or id-vs-path resolution detail beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb ("resets") and resource ("item fields"), so the domain is identifiable. However, "reset" is ambiguous — it does not say whether fields revert to template/standard defaults, are cleared, or are recomputed, and there is no differentiation from siblings like common-set-item-template or common-get-item-field.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used, what preconditions apply, or which sibling covers the task instead. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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