Reset configuration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the danger is flagged structurally; the description adds real value by naming what is destroyed (the persisted config file), what the post-state is (defaults + env vars), and the gating flag plus confirmation token required. It stops short of noting whether the deleted file is recoverable or backed up.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the irreversible action is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisites. Every clause earns its place.

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, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers effect, post-state, and gating requirements. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the description only restates the confirm="reset" requirement already documented in the schema. It adds the non-parameter precondition safety.allowDestructive, which is useful, but the single parameter itself gains no new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete the persisted config file) plus the resulting behavior (fall back to defaults and environment variables). This clearly distinguishes it from buffer_set_config and buffer_get_config, which the agent can tell apart without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions for invocation: safety.allowDestructive=true and confirm="reset". It does not, however, compare itself to alternatives such as buffer_set_config for non-destructive changes, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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