common-reset-item-field-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'resets' but doesn't clarify behavioral aspects like whether this is destructive (likely yes, given 'reset'), what permissions are needed, if changes are reversible, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('resets item fields') and adds qualifying details. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., destructiveness, auth needs), doesn't explain return values or errors, and provides minimal guidance on usage versus siblings. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying fields can be specified as 'names, fields or template fields', which loosely relates to the 'name' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states the tool 'resets item fields' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'resets' means (e.g., to default values, clears data) and doesn't distinguish from sibling 'common-reset-item-field-by-path' beyond the ID parameter. It mentions fields can be specified 'as either names, fields or template fields' which adds some specificity but remains ambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'common-reset-item-field-by-path' (which likely uses a path instead of ID) or other field modification tools. The description implies usage by ID but doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with siblings.

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