reset_usage_limit_entity

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

Annotations already indicate destructive nature (destructiveHint=true). The description adds that it changes accumulated usage for that entity only, which is useful beyond annotations. It could mention reversibility but is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 annotations and output schema existence, the description adequately covers the action and usage hint. It does not explain the exact reset value, but the context of a mutation tool with destructiveHint makes it sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description does not need to add new meaning. The description reinforces context but does not enhance parameter semantics 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 tracked usage for one entity under a usage limit' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_usage_limit_entities' by mentioning it changes accumulated usage for that entity only.

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 explicitly advises using 'list_usage_limit_entities' to confirm the target first, providing clear context and a prerequisite step. It does not mention when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for a destructive tool.

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