reset_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds a valuable, non-obvious behavioral fact: clearing the schema does not affect data already saved to the server (不影响已保存到服务器的数据). This caveat meaningfully shapes an agent's expectations about what this destructive-sounding operation actually touches.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded and the critical caveat about server data follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 parameter-less tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the intent, and the key safety caveat. It could marginally add explicit contrast with set_full_schema as an alternative, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly suggests no configuration is required; there is nothing further the description needs to explain about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb (清空/clear) with a specific resource (当前表单 Schema), and adds the intent (重新开始设计/restart design). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like set_full_schema or get_schema, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase '重新开始设计' (restart design) implies when this tool is appropriate — when the user wants to start over from scratch. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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