Reset viewer all-time points

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. 'Cannot be undone' adds a meaningful degree of specificity (irreversibility, not just destructiveness), but nothing is said about scope of effect or whether other balances are touched.

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, front-loaded sentences with the destructive warning placed immediately after the action. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter mutation whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema documents all parameters. Still missing which balances are affected (all-time vs. current), channel scoping behavior, and any confirmation/permission requirement.

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 coverage is 100% – both 'user' (login name, lowercase) and 'channel' (24-char hex, with default resolution) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (viewer's all-time points), and the 'all-time' qualifier implicitly separates it from points_reset_user (regular points) and points_reset_all (all users). It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 on when to choose this over points_reset_user, points_reset_all, or points_add_alltime, and no prerequisites (e.g. required scope or channel context) are stated. The agent must infer the use case 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.