reset_system_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that customisations are overwritten, indicating destructive nature. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or impact on running processes.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words or details. Every part adds value.

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?

Given the destructive nature and lack of annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It tells the main effect but omits details like irreversibility, return value, or confirmation steps. It covers the essential but not all context needed for safe invocation.

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 description does not explain the one required parameter 'project_id'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should at least identify what the parameter represents, but it provides no additional meaning beyond 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 states the action ('Reset'), the resource ('all system email templates'), and the effect ('to their factory defaults, overwrites customisations'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from related tools like 'seed_email_templates' by specifying 'factory defaults' and 'overwrites customisations'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with siblings like 'seed_email_templates' or individual template operations.

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