Reset Grail Budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral facts: the target is the session-scoped Grail scanned-bytes budget and the effect is that queries can continue. It says nothing about required privileges, whether the reset is auditable/reversible, or how governance/consumption accounting is affected, which are significant omissions for a mutation.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the rationale follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated from the name/title.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is functionally sufficient to invoke it, but as a mutation with no annotations it omits auth requirements and the consequences of clearing the budget. An agent knows what happens but not under what authority or with what side effects.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. The session scoping is stated, which is the only parameter-like dimension that exists.

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 and resource ('Clear session Grail scanned-bytes budget') and even explains the outcome ('so queries can continue'). That is far more specific than the title alone, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with query siblings like dynatrace_execute_dql or dynatrace_verify_dql.

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 clause 'so queries can continue' implies the trigger condition (queries blocked by an exhausted scanned-bytes budget), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which alternative to consider, leaving the agent to infer the operational context.

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