Reset Site

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it removes all existing data. It adds the specific detail of resetting to a fresh WordPress install, which goes beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements or irreversible nature beyond the data removal, but the annotation covers the destructive aspect, so this is adequate.

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 fluff. The core action is stated first, and the critical consequence is second. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given that this is a destructive tool with only two parameters and high schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what happens and what parameters are needed (via schema). The absence of an output schema is fine, and the tool's complexity is low. A 4 reflects that it's complete for an agent to call correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions. The description itself doesn't add extra meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no format hints for admin_password), but the schema covers the basics. Thus, baseline 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 (reset) and the resource (a Kinsta site), and specifies the outcome (fresh WordPress install, removes all data). This clearly distinguishes it from similar tools like kinsta_sites_delete and kinsta_backups_restore, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 implies when to use this tool (when a fresh install is needed) and clearly states the consequence (removes all data), which implicitly warns against using it when data retention is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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