Reset viewer points

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds concrete value beyond them by stating the mechanism ('removing them from the points table') and reinforcing irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'). It does not mention auth/permission requirements, but the core destructive behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the irreversible consequence. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what matters: what is reset, how, and that it cannot be undone. It stops short of routing guidance against its close siblings (reset_alltime, reset_all), which is the only meaningful gap.

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 both parameters (user, channel) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'viewer' concept and adds nothing about the channel parameter or its SE_CHANNEL_ID default. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (reset a viewer's points) and narrows the scope with 'current points', which implicitly separates it from the sibling points_reset_user_alltime. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader noticing the word 'current'.

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 implied by the 'current points' phrasing (as opposed to all-time), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as points_add, points_reset_user_alltime, or points_reset_all. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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