Reset all points

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint true and readOnlyHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful irreversibility warning ('Cannot be undone') and emphasizes bulk scope ('EVERY viewer'), going beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences: action, irreversibility warning, and explicit-ask condition. The most important constraints are front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 bulk reset operation with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description supplies the missing irreversibility and trigger condition. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 fully documents both channel and context parameters. The description does not add format or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 'Reset' and resource 'points of EVERY viewer on the channel' for a 'leaderboard context'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like points_reset_user and points_reset_user_alltime, which reset individual users.

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?

Explicitly conditions use on the user explicitly asking, which is a clear when-to-use guardrail. It does not name the alternative sibling tools for narrower resets, so it falls short of a full 5.

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