Reset to-dos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the destructive outcome ('back to empty', entry 'reset to open'), which is genuinely useful context, but it omits reversibility, whether confirmation is needed, and permissions.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a short rationale. The trailing 'without editing the JSON file' clause is mildly redundant but does justify the tool's existence.

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?

A simple one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema; the description covers both call modes adequately. A brief note on whether the reset is recoverable would make it fully complete.

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%, so the todo_id semantics (omit or "*" for full clear) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the two modes but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb ('clear', 'reset') and resource ('to-do list'), and distinguishes its two operating modes: wiping the whole list vs. resetting one entry to open. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_todos or save_assessment, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear context for use: getting back to a clean list without hand-editing the JSON file. There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause and no named alternative sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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