reset_crm_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation requiring confirmation (confirm=true) and describes the effect: resetting error counter and reactivating endpoints conditionally. It does not cover side effects or authorization needs but is adequate for the simple action.

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 succinct, using a dash to separate purpose and usage. Every sentence is informative with no 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?

Given the simple action and lack of output schema, the description covers the main functionality and conditional behavior. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions) but is otherwise 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 schema covers the only parameter 'confirm' with 100% description coverage. The description adds context by stating the confirmation requirement and danger, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Resetear' and the resources: 'contador de errores CRM' and 'reactiva los endpoints' if disabled. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'test_crm_endpoint' and 'get_crm_health_status' by focusing on resetting errors and reactivating endpoints.

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 usage when CRM endpoints are disabled due to consecutive errors and notes that confirmation is required. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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