git_reset

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

The annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds the scope of the operation ('all staged changes') but does not clarify side effects such as whether working-tree changes or commit history are affected. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior immediately and is easy for an agent to parse.

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 simple one-parameter git operation, the description covers the action and scope. The annotations cover destructive and idempotent behavior, so the remaining gaps, such as output format and non-effect on working tree, are minor.

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 input schema has zero description coverage and the description does not explain repo_path. Although repo_path is a single self-explanatory parameter, the description adds no meaning about its format, required location, or default behavior, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Unstages all staged changes'. It clearly tells the agent exactly what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like git_add, git_status, and git_diff_staged.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, what prerequisites apply, or how it compares to git_checkout, git_commit, or git_add.

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