ztds_reset_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Zeroize and purge" hints at destruction and "volatile in-memory" suggests transience, but the description never states whether the operation is irreversible, whether it requires authentication or a privileged context, or what happens to tokens still in use. That is a material gap for a destructive write tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; it is efficient, though the parenthetical "(Theorem 2 RAM zeroization)" is internal jargon that does little for tool selection.

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?

The one-parameter, no-output-schema surface is simple and fully covered by the schema, and no return values need explaining. The missing piece is destructive-operation context (irreversibility, scope of clearing) that no annotation supplies.

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 100% and the schema itself explains the optional sessionId and the omit-to-clear-all fallback, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific verb pair ("Zeroize and purge") and resource ("volatile in-memory token mappings"), so an agent knows this is a destructive memory-cleanup operation. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling ztds_sanitize, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. ztds_sanitize) to prefer instead. The only routing signal is implicit in the schema's "if omitted, clears all sessions" note.

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