vrrp_reset

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 does state that this is a write operation and that it requires confirmation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what exactly gets reset, whether the action is reversible, or what the confirmation flow entails (e.g., how to obtain the confirmation ID and token). While it provides some transparency, it is incomplete.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It is a single short sentence that conveys the core purpose without verbosity. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it is not optimally balanced.

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 there is no output schema and three parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'reset' does, the confirmation prerequisite, or how to interact with the tool's parameters. It also does not differentiate this action from vrrp_set or vrrp_apply. An agent would need significant external knowledge to use this tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the three parameters (user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id). The description only hints at confirmation requirements, but does not explain the purpose of user_code, nor how the confirm_token and confirmation_id are used or related. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly supply parameters.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Reset VRRP'. It is a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like vrrp_show, vrrp_set, and vrrp_enable. However, it does not specify what 'reset' entails (e.g., reset to defaults, restart the service), so it lacks nuance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name any sibling tools or mention conditions for use, such as 'Use when you need to clear all VRRP settings' or 'Do not use if you only need to modify settings'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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