touchlink_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it clearly discloses the destructive consequences: factory defaults and removal from the gateway, highlighted with a 'Warning'. It also identifies the required input's source, giving an agent the prerequisite knowledge needed before calling.

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, purposeful sections: action, argument source, and warning. Nothing is redundant, and the destructive warning is clearly front-loaded before the parameter detail.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the source of the required ID, and the principal side effects. No additional return-value documentation is necessary because an output schema is present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain touchlink_id. It does meaningfully by specifying it is the Device ID from get_touchlink_results, which links the reset tool to the discovery workflow. It does not give format or length, but the source is sufficient for a single string parameter.

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: factory-reset a Touchlink device and remove it from its current network. This is immediately distinguishable from touchlink_scan, touchlink_identify, and get_touchlink_results, which concern discovery and identification rather than reset.

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 gives clear context for use: it is the reset action on a device found via a touchlink scan, and it tells the agent where the touchlink_id comes from (get_touchlink_results). It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling performs a reset, so the context is sufficient.

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