reset_universe

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial blast radius: it destroys session state yet does NOT delete source or snapshots, and it is safely repeatable. This is exactly the contextual disclosure annotations cannot convey, and it is consistent with them.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then usage boundary, then destructive scope, then idempotency and return value. Front-loaded and entirely free of filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything: what it clears, when to invoke it, what it does not affect, and its return value. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the schema has no fields to document. Baseline of 4 applies since nothing is missing on the input side.

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 action and resource — 'Discard the active design and all in-memory session state' — with a clear scope. It implicitly separates itself from read-only siblings by warning 'do not use merely to inspect status', so an agent can distinguish it from status without opening any schema.

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?

Gives genuine when-to-use ('before starting an unrelated design') and when-not-to-use ('do not use merely to inspect status') guidance. It stops short of naming the concrete alternative tool (the `status` sibling) that should be used for inspection, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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