openclaw_sessions_reset

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It correctly states the tool is destructive and preserves the session id, but it does not detail what 'working state' entails (e.g., messages, context). Also missing are potential authorization requirements or side effects beyond state clearing.

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 primary purpose. Every word earns its place; no redundancy. The description is extremely concise yet informative.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must cover return values, but it does not. The tool is simple, yet the description omits what is returned (e.g., confirmation, success). The destructive warning is helpful, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the overall behavior. Baseline score applies.

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 verb 'Reset' and the resource 'a session'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that it clears working state but keeps the session id, and it mentions wrapping `sessions.reset`. This ensures the agent understands the specific action.

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 provides a clear warning 'Destructive — confirm before calling.' This indicates when caution is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like `openclaw_sessions_abort` or `openclaw_sessions_delete`, leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool over others.

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