reset_entire_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the destructive nature, irreversibility, and the need for exact confirm. It lists what data is affected, which is good, though it could mention scope or success/failure response.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the critical verb and resource, then stating irreversibility and condition. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool's destructive simplicity and one parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, irreversibility, and execution condition. It is missing mentions of recovery or errors, but is adequate for the scope.

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 description coverage is 100% for the confirm parameter. The description adds value by specifying the exact required string and noting without quotes, which reinforces the schema enum. This goes beyond the baseline of 3.

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 it deletes all user data from a specific local database, listing what is included (memo, semantic, project brain, compaction, Unity index). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_memory which targets individual items.

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 implies use for complete reset by noting irreversibility and the confirm requirement. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear.

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