tokportal_reset_bundle_video

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying coverage requirements, auto-renewal behavior, and the condition that 'no task or media mutation starts' if coverage cannot renew. This is useful but still leaves the core effect of 'reset' unclear (what state changes occur?). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known, but the description does not fully clarify the operation's output.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose. The subsequent sentences add necessary constraints without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured, though the middle sentence could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

The description covers preconditions (coverage, grandfathering) and edge cases (renewal failure), but does not explain what the reset operation actually accomplishes, what the response looks like, or whether it is reversible. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left uncertain about the tool's effect and expected result.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add any new information about the `id`, `position`, or `idempotency_key` parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Reset one video slot', which is a specific verb+resource. It adds context about coverage conditions and renewal, which helps define the scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this reset operation from sibling tools like configure or patch bundle video, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when coverage conditions are met, but does not provide when-not or alternative recommendations. The agent must infer context without decision support.

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