common-reset-item-field-by-path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action is 'resets' but doesn't clarify what that entails (e.g., irreversible data loss, default values, permissions required). It mentions fields can be 'names, fields or template fields' but doesn't explain the effect or constraints. This leaves critical behavioral aspects like destructiveness, side effects, or error handling unspecified.

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, compact sentence that efficiently states the core action and parameters. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating the action from parameter details, but it remains appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with 4 parameters. It lacks details on what 'resets' means behaviorally, the impact on the item, error conditions, or return values. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and correct usage is insufficient, especially compared to siblings with similar functions.

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 'path' targets an item and 'name' includes field names with wildcards, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema (e.g., what 'resets' means for each parameter type). With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 'Resets item fields, specified as either names, fields or template fields by path' restates the tool name ('reset-item-field-by-path') with minimal elaboration. It mentions 'item fields' and 'by path' but lacks specificity about what 'resets' means (e.g., to default values, clears data) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'common-reset-item-field-by-id' or 'common-set-item-template-by-path'. This is borderline tautological with only slight expansion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for maintenance or error recovery), or comparisons to siblings like 'common-reset-item-field-by-id' (which uses ID instead of path). Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for selection.

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