git_reset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one real behavioral fact - that the reset is unscoped ('all') and index-only - but says nothing about whether working-tree edits are preserved or how that differs from a hard reset.

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?

A single five-word clause with zero filler and the scope caveat ('all') front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than crispness.

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, no-output-schema tool this is roughly the minimum viable: the effect on the index is stated and annotations cover safety. Missing is any hint about repo_path's expected form and whether unstaging leaves working-tree changes intact.

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 description never mentions repo_path, so nothing compensates for the undocumented parameter. The name 'repo_path' is fairly intuitive, which keeps this above a 1, but format or example guidance is absent from both sources.

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 resource ('unstages ... staged changes') and makes the 'all' scope explicit, so the agent knows it cannot be limited to one file. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings like git_add or git_diff_staged, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus git_add, git_diff_staged, or a hard reset, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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