Reset the twin

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds important detail beyond those flags: checkpoints are removed, webhook subscriptions and auth mode are retained, and the response contains the new status. This clarifies exactly what state is affected, which is critical for a destructive reset 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?

The description front-loads the destructive reset behavior, then states what persists, then names the alternative for partial undo. Every sentence carries useful information without unnecessary repetition.

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 zero-parameter destructive reset tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key concerns: scope of destruction, retained state, alternative for partial undo, and the fact that it returns the new status. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than describing nonexistent inputs.

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 states a specific action and resource: throwing away everything since the start and rebuilding the seeded world with its timeline and faults. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling twin_rewind, which handles only partial undo. An agent can identify what this tool does and when it differs from alternatives without opening any schema.

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 explicitly routes partial undo to twin_rewind, giving a clear alternative for a narrower operation. It also states what is destroyed and what persists, which helps an agent decide whether this destructive reset is appropriate.

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