reset_project_brain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job by disclosing exactly what is wiped (configuration, tasks, context metadata) and what remains intact (git, source code). This is key safety information for a destructive tool. It stops short of stating irreversibility or any confirmation steps, which would elevate it further.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the action and targets; the second sentence reassures about exclusions. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is destroyed and what is protected. It does not explain return values, but the existence of an output schema mitigates that. It could mention irreversibility, but the scope of behavior is otherwise well covered.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, which is fully described as 'Project root directory.' The tool description's 'selected project' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'wipe' and clearly identifies the resource ('Project Brain configuration, tasks, and context metadata') within a scope ('inside the selected project'). It also distinguishes itself from destructive tools by explicitly noting git and source code are untouched, making it unique among siblings.

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 implies usage for resetting a project's brain but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like archive_project_brain or reset_context, which are nearby siblings. The safety clarification about git/source code provides some context but not full decision support.

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