sound_reset_history

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful blast-radius context beyond that: 'Cannot be undone' and 'The FL project and its presets are unchanged', telling the agent exactly what is and is not affected.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence, then the scope boundary. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, annotations carry the safety profile, and the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: what is destroyed versus preserved. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the single boolean's description already spells out the confirm-after-user-request semantics. The description's 'after the user asks to' reinforces the same idea but adds no new syntax or format information, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (local sound-selection history), and immediately bounds the scope ('the bounded history records that steer future palettes'). This clearly separates it from the sibling sound_get_history, which reads rather than removes history.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('after the user asks to'), which is the key usage gate for a destructive tool. It does not name an alternative (e.g. sound_get_history for inspection) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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