reset_user_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says what state is destroyed by default, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or how the keepHistory flag changes the outcome, which are exactly the facts an agent needs before mutating a user record.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the usage cue trailing. There is no filler, though the parenthetical is terse enough to feel like an afterthought rather than structured guidance.

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 mutation with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: it doesn't say what is reset, what happens to history by default, or what the caller gets back. Enough to guess the intent, not enough to call it safely.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (userId, keepHistory) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no interpretation of keepHistory beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb (reset) and resource (a user's moderation profile), which is enough to distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like get_user_profile or get_high_risk_users. It stops short of naming what 'reset' actually clears (risk score, flags, history), leaving the exact effect slightly ambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(use after appeals or timeouts)' gives a genuine situational trigger, better than nothing. However, it offers no exclusions and names no alternative action for cases that don't warrant a full reset, so the agent must infer boundaries.

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