taskguard_reset_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that archiving preserves audit history, implying delete removes it, but does not explain what 'reset' actually does to the session (e.g., clears checkpoints, marks incomplete, etc.). Partial transparency.

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 concise sentences that front-load the essential purpose and usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage context (when to call, preference) but lacks details on what the tool does to the session state. Slightly incomplete for full understanding.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It does not describe sessionId (identifies session) or mode (archive vs delete) beyond what the enum values already convey. The description adds no parameter context.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: resetting a TaskGuard session when the user abandons, restarts, archives, or deletes it. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like taskguard_add_checkpoint or taskguard_define_goal, which perform different actions.

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?

The description provides concrete when-to-use guidance: 'only when the user abandons, restarts, archives, or deletes' a session, and adds a preference: 'Prefer archive over delete to preserve audit history.' This helps the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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