Reset Skill Override

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral fact the annotations cannot convey: that custom overrides are discarded and reverted to frontmatter defaults, which tells the agent what is lost and what the post-state will be.

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 zero filler; the action and its resulting state are stated immediately.

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?

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the one thing they lack: the reversion target. It is complete for invocation, though routing guidance against the update sibling is absent.

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 'setting' enum's '(omit for both)' semantics are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (reset) plus resource (a skill's invocation settings) and a clear target state (frontmatter defaults). It implicitly distinguishes itself from skill-display-update-invocation by describing reversion rather than mutation of custom values, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 states what reset means but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit contrast with skill-display-update-invocation, which an agent must choose between. Usage context is only implied by the word 'reset'.

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