paper_reset

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds valuable specifics: it deletes simulated fills and positions and affects nothing real. It also discloses the bankroll source and default value, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action, target, side effects, and safety boundary are all front-loaded and clearly stated.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the action, target, default value, what is deleted, and what is untouched. No output schema exists, but the absence of return-value details does not hinder correct invocation.

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?

There are no parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the empty schema. The description adds useful context about the bankroll constant, but parameter semantics is trivially satisfied.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Reset the paper-trading ledger' with a clear end state (starting bankroll). It distinguishes itself from the many live-market siblings by explicitly saying it operates on simulated data and 'touches nothing real.'

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 intended use is clear: reset the paper-trading ledger to its initial bankroll. It does not name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the paper-trading scope and safety boundary make the context unambiguous.

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