Сбросить накопленные изменения

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

Goes beyond the annotations by enumerating exactly what gets destroyed (snapshot DBs, event log, and on full reset the state.json.corrupt-* copies and temp files), stating that only local files are touched, and that confirm:true is required. It leaves open the behavior with confirm=false and whether it fails when no database exists.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destruction action and its scope, then the side effects and the confirm requirement. No redundant or filler text, though slightly denser than necessary.

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, non-open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers destruction scope, side effects, locality, and the confirm gate. It omits failure/return behavior, which would be useful but is not strictly required.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the semantic difference that omitting scope triggers a broader wipe (corrupt-file copies and leftover temp files), not merely 'all areas' as the schema enum note says.

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 (стирает) and resources (локальные базы снимков, журнал событий), plus the consequence (next hse_changes recreates the base), which distinguishes it from the sibling hse_changes. It does not, however, contrast itself with hse_clear_cache, the other reset-like sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: a full reset happens when scope is omitted, and confirm:true is mandatory. There is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance or statement of when hse_clear_cache would be the right alternative instead.

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