reset_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses both what is cleared (every portal/project selection) and what is preserved (OAuth config), which is meaningful side-effect information for a reset operation. It does not mention irreversibility or post-conditions, but the scope is simple enough that the stated behavior is largely sufficient.

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 that states the action, the scope, and the key preservation guarantee. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the scope, and what is not affected. A minor gap is not explicitly routing to remove_portal_selection for single-selection removal, but this is inferable from the sibling list.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description does not need to explain anything beyond the fact that no arguments are required, which the schema already conveys.

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 ('Clear') and resource ('every portal/project selection') and adds a key distinction ('without losing OAuth config'). It clearly separates this from sibling tools like remove_portal_selection and configure_oauth.

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 gives clear context: it clears all selections rather than just one, and it explicitly notes that OAuth configuration is preserved. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'every' qualifier makes the intended use reasonably inferable from sibling names.

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