optimizer_resetDiscard all optimization options, the selected choice, and every locale draft for a project to clear prior ASO decisions and start over.
Discard all options, the choice and every locale draft for the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project id (from get_overview). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (options, the choice, every locale draft), which the annotations do not. It stops short of saying the action is irreversible or that no confirmation is required.
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?
One sentence that front-loads the destructive verb and immediately qualifies scope with "all". No filler and nothing the agent must scan past.
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 one-parameter destructive tool, annotations plus the enumerated list of discarded artifacts give an agent nearly everything needed. Missing only an explicit irreversibility/confirmation note given destructiveHint=true.
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 parameter is documented in-schema, including a pointer to get_overview for obtaining the id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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?
A specific verb ("Discard") plus an enumerated resource set (all options, the choice, every locale draft) tied to a project. The word "all" implicitly separates it from the sibling optimizer_remove_option / optimizer_edit_locale tools, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to reset versus when to use optimizer_remove_option, optimizer_choose, or optimizer_edit_locale to correct a single item. Usage is only inferable from the word "all"; no prerequisites, no confirmation guidance, no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.