hard_reset_checkpoint

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the destructiveHint annotation: irreversible erasure, editor reload, waiting for reconnect, and returning vcs_status. It does not contradict annotations; the idempotentHint and destructiveHint are consistent with a reset that can be repeated and has destructive side effects.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the destructive warning is front-loaded, key side effects are stated compactly, the return value is noted, and the alternative is given without extra prose. The description is dense but highly readable.

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, editor-reloading operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the irreversibility, the side effect on the editor, the return value, and the alternative tool. An agent has enough information to decide when to call this tool and what to expect afterward.

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%, so the schema already documents both branchId and checkpointId. The description reinforces the meaning of checkpointId indirectly by explaining that later checkpoints are erased, but it does not add new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: reset the branch head back to a checkpoint, and clearly specifies the destructive consequence: permanently erasing every later checkpoint. It also distinguishes itself from restore_checkpoint, which is a sibling with a similar purpose but a different use case.

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 provides a 'When NOT to use' condition and names the alternative restore_checkpoint for rolling back working state while keeping history. This gives an agent clear routing guidance beyond mere capability description.

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