Reset Project

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

The description says the tool 'clears the graph', which is a destructive action on graph data. However, annotations set destructiveHint=false, directly contradicting the described behavior. Also, while it mentions keeping the ontology, it does not clarify whether the clearing is permanent or if there is any recovery mechanism. This is an Annotation Contradiction.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main side effect (clears graph, keeps ontology). However, the contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation and the lack of explicit irreversibility information prevent a perfect score.

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 input schema has full coverage for project_id with a description ('The project ID to reset'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description specifies the verb 'Reset' and the resource 'project's state', and clarifies the outcome: the knowledge graph can be rebuilt. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_project and delete_graph by explicitly stating it keeps the ontology while clearing the graph.

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 when to use the tool: when a project's knowledge graph needs to be rebuilt while preserving the ontology. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from destructive delete operations.

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