cpu_restart_onboarding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effects: resetting state to step 1 and causing game tools to refuse until intro is closed. It also clarifies the constraint that playerRequest must be the player's own words, quoted, and non-empty. This goes beyond basic expectations and is highly transparent.

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, with two sentences that pack essential information. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage constraints and consequences. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and parameter requirements. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds 'carries their own words, quoted, and it must not be empty' but this largely repeats the schema's description and minLength constraint. It adds minimal extra meaning, 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Run the introduction again' with the condition 'because the player asked for it.' It distinguishes this from initial onboarding or skipping by explicitly focusing on a rerun, which sets it apart from sibling tools like cpu_onboarding and cpu_skip_onboarding.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('only an explicit request from the player justifies it') and when not to ('Never call this on your own initiative'), and even explains the consequences of misuse (resets state, tools refuse until intro is closed). This is excellent guidance for an agent.

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