ghl_social_reset_queue_item

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that the tool discards modifications and resets to original state. Annotations include destructiveHint=false, which is consistent. The endpoint and OAuth scopes are also provided.

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 concise (two sentences plus endpoint and scopes), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral effect but lacks information about response format, error states, prerequisites (e.g., item existence), or side effects. Given no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is low (33%), and the description does not compensate by explaining queueId or itemId beyond their appearance in the endpoint URL. The body parameter is described but only with a generic note.

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 'reset' and the resource 'queue item', and explains the effect: 'resets to its original state, discarding any modifications made.' This differentiates it from siblings like update or delete.

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 for reverting modifications but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or delete. It lacks 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings.

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