rc_reset

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the destructive nature: 'DESTRUCTIVE - requires explicit confirmation.' It details what gets cleared (checkpoint store and markdown state file) and the state after success, providing transparency about side effects without relying on annotations.

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 and well-structured: it leads with the action and resources, then states destructive nature, usage context, and subsequent steps in three efficient sentences. No redundant or filler content.

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 destructive reset tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: purpose, affected state, safety requirement, when to use, and what to do next. It covers all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage, including the necessity of confirm being true and project_path being an absolute path. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond schema, only reinforcing the confirmation requirement already described in the schema.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: resetting RC Method pipeline state. It specifies the exact resources affected (checkpoint store and markdown state file), distinguishes it from sibling tools like rc_start and rc_init, and uses an imperative verb ('Reset') that matches the tool name.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user wants to start over or abandon current progress.' It also provides clear post-conditions and next steps ('After success: pipeline is clean, call rc_start or rc_init to begin again'), giving actionable guidance.

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