vibe_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: it is destructive ('back up + reset'), gated behind a preview/confirm token flow, and requires explicit user confirmation. It does not state permissions, what exactly is reset/backed up, or whether the reset 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the gating protocol. No filler, though the 'VibeWise:' prefix adds little.

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 2-param destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the confirmation protocol well but omits what 'learning' data is affected, whether the backup is recoverable, and any meaning for projectPath.

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 50%: confirm is documented in the schema and the description reinforces its role (fingerprint token passed back after confirmation). projectPath is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'restart learning from scratch' via a reset. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like vibe_start or vibe_pause.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing: call without confirm for a preview token, and only reset after the user explicitly confirms with the token. This is strong when-to-use guidance for a destructive action, but it names no alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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