factory_reset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine value on top: it enumerates what is destroyed (all presets and settings), states the resulting state (factory), and surfaces the data-loss risk with a backup recommendation. It does not say whether the pedal is usable during/after the operation or what the response returns, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded before the prerequisite and the confirmation requirement. Every sentence carries operational information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety hints and no output schema, the description covers scope, consequence, prerequisite, and the exact confirmation string. The remaining gap is minor — no statement about post-reset state (e.g., whether settings must be re-applied) or error behavior on a wrong confirm value.

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% and the single required parameter is an untyped bare string, so the schema alone gives the agent no way to guess the accepted value. The description supplies the exact literal (confirm = "ERASE ALL") and its safety-gate intent, fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 and full scope: "ERASES ALL presets and settings on the pedal and restores factory state." The capitalized ALL makes the blast radius unmistakable and separates it from narrower siblings like restore_preset or restore_system_state.

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 requires a backup first and names the sibling to use for that (backup_all_presets), which is exactly the prerequisite an agent needs. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it versus restore_preset/restore_system_state, but the destructive scope makes the choice largely self-evident.

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