reset_user_progress

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

Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context—just stating 'Reset user progress' without elaborating on side effects (e.g., whether progress is permanently deleted or can be recovered). No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 concise but includes redundant elements like the emoji and HTTP method line. The core information is front-loaded, but some text is repetitive (title appears twice). Could be streamlined.

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 no output schema and a write operation with nested parameters, the description lacks detail on return values, status, or error handling. It does not clarify the effect of the 'units' parameter. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'course or learning activity level' is already implied). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'reset' and the resource 'user progress', and identifies the scope as course or learning activity level. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like 'mark_as_complete' or 'get_user_progress'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The sibling list includes other progress-related tools, but no comparative context is provided.

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