reset_arrangement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: pieces are moved back to arrangement positions and draping effects are reversed, which goes beyond what the tool name alone conveys. However, it doesn't disclose whether this resets simulation state, whether it interacts with checkpoints, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the clarifying intent in parentheses. Every word contributes meaning and there is no filler or 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?

For a zero-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the essential behavior: what is reset and what semantic effect it has. Minor gaps remain around side effects on simulation/checkpoint state, but given the low complexity, the definition is adequately complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage and there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies; no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reset'), names the affected resource ('all pieces'), and defines the target state ('their arrangement positions'). The parenthetical '(undo draping)' adds semantic intent that distinguishes it from placement/movement tools like place_pattern and move_pattern_2d. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from restore_checkpoint, another undo-style sibling, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 '(undo draping)' parenthetical implies the appropriate usage context: after a draping/simulation operation has moved pieces away from their arrangement positions. However, no explicit when-to-use instruction, exclusion, or named alternative (e.g., restore_checkpoint) is provided, so the agent must infer the boundary between this and similar state-restoring tools.

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