Reset PHP extensions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about what the reset entails (default state) and when to use it, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permissions, or scope beyond 'all extensions'. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The primary action is stated first, followed by the use-case rationale. Everything earns its place and is easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema). Annotations provide the destructive/idempotent profile, and the description adds the purpose and use case. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide when to call it, though it could mention sibling tools or limitations (e.g., what happens to currently active extensions).

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% for both parameters (domain and username), each with a basic description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details for parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Resets'), the resource ('all PHP extensions'), and the outcome ('to their default state'). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from tools that update or list extensions.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'recover from extension conflicts or restore the original configuration'. It doesn't contrast with alternatives like hosting_updatePHPExtensionsV1, but the context implies it's for resetting to default rather than updating to custom values.

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