Reset Token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a human-authorized, protocol-level override with no protocol-layer auth, and mentions 'no DB surgery, audited append-only' to signal safety and logging behavior. It also ties misuse risk to explicit user instruction. It doesn't state reversibility or prerequisites (e.g., identity must exist), but for a sensitive mutation it is unusually transparent.

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 compact and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and supporting security context following. Every sentence adds information. Minor jargon ('protocol-level root path', 'Threat-model bound') is dense but not verbose.

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 the output schema exists and there are only two simple parameters, the description covers the required invocation semantics, security context, and effect. It does not explain what responses look like, but the output schema covers that. The only gap is that it relies on familiarity with set_status's human_override pattern, which an agent might not have.

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 compensate. It maps 'named identity' to the author parameter and explains human_override in depth, including when it may be set. It does not explicitly spell out that author is the identity whose token resets, but the phrasing is sufficient for an agent to infer the mapping.

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 clearly states the tool resets a token: 'Clears the named identity's token so its next claim_token issues fresh.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like claim_token and ack_token. The 'protocol-level root path' framing adds context without obscuring the core action.

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?

It gives explicit guidance for the critical human_override flag: 'the flag is to be set ONLY when the machine's user explicitly instructs it.' It also references set_status's human_override as a sibling pattern, which helps an agent infer the exceptional nature of this operation. It doesn't name an alternative tool for ordinary token refreshes, but the condition is clear.

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