Git reset

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description should elaborate on destructive behavior. It only adds the confirm=true requirement for --hard, which is a single behavioral detail not in annotations. It doesn't disclose the scope of the reset (e.g., mixed vs hard), reversibility, or impact on working tree/index, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a destructive tool.

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 extremely concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and destructive behavior. It is a single fragment without clear structure or front-loading of critical information. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to provide necessary content, so it is not appropriately sized.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema shown, and zero schema coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what reset modes are available, what each parameter does, what the tool returns, or the consequences of using it. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'modes' and 'confirm' without describing rev, path, mode values, or how confirm interacts with mode. No parameter is meaningfully explained, so it adds no value beyond the raw schema.

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 'Reset modes; --hard requires confirm=true.' is vague about what is being reset and to what. It doesn't explicitly state it resets a Git repository's working tree, index, or HEAD to a specified revision. It provides a hint about a constraint but not a clear verb+resource statement, making it hard to distinguish from siblings like git_checkout or git_revert.

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 offers no guidance on when to use git_reset versus alternative tools such as git_checkout or git_revert. It only mentions a constraint for --hard, but gives no context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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