networksResetFabricStp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Reset' implies a mutation operation, but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (e.g., reverts to defaults, affects network stability), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies network configuration.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Reset' entails behaviorally (e.g., resets to defaults, may disrupt network), potential impacts, or return values, leaving the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'fabricId' documented as 'The fabric id or name.' The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 target ('fabric spanning tree protocol settings'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'networksUpdateFabricStp' or 'networksGetFabricStp', which would require mentioning what makes this tool unique (e.g., resetting to defaults vs. updating specific settings).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'networksUpdateFabricStp' or 'networksGetFabricStp'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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