reset_settings

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description's value-add is disclosing the dry-run path ('Plan or delete') and what the deletion achieves (fallback to bundled defaults). It still doesn't say whether the deletion is reversible or which profiles/settings are affected beyond the named one.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the effect on future runs comes before any optional detail. Slightly compressed wording ('Plan or delete') costs a bit of clarity for its brevity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the destructive nature plus dry-run mode are covered. What's missing is scope: whether only the named profile is deleted, where profiles live, and whether non-profile settings survive a reset.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented inline, including that name=None uses the default and confirm=false returns a plan. The description's 'Plan or delete' reinforces the confirm semantics but adds no new syntax or constraint 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('delete a Maestro profile') plus the outcome ('future runs use bundled defaults'), which separates it from get_settings/set_settings. The phrasing 'Plan or delete' is slightly ambiguous about whether two operations exist, but the intent is recoverable.

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 stated effect ('future runs use bundled defaults') implies when to reach for it, but no alternative is named and no exclusion is given (e.g., use set_settings to change individual values instead of resetting). An agent must infer the boundary with set_settings.

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