Reset a MasterMind thread

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond that by explaining the consequence: mappings are forgotten and a later consultation spawns three new native conversations. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the behavioral consequence 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, followed immediately by the usage condition. No 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?

The tool is simple (one param, output schema present) and the description covers the core behavior and post-reset outcome. It lacks only explanation of the thread_key identifier, which is a minor gap for a single-param tool with an output schema.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 0%, so there is no schema documentation to lean on. The description uses thread_key but never explains what a thread key is or how it is obtained. With one parameter, baseline 4 would apply only if the description compensated, which it does not.

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 ('forget') and the exact resource affected: local Claude, Gemini, and Grok session mappings for thread_key. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like mastermind_exact and mastermind_feedback, though 'reset' in the title vs 'forget' in the description is slightly loose.

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 says 'Use when the user asks to start fresh,' giving a clear trigger. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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