admin_reset_limits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (reset) and scope (all rate limits), but does not mention that this is destructive, irreversible, or requires special permissions. An agent cannot assess the safety or side effects beyond what 'reset' implies.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool, the description covers the basic function but omits behavioral details (e.g., irreversibility, permission requirements, effect on existing custom limits). Without annotations, this is a gap for an admin mutate operation.

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 already provides 100% coverage with accountId described as 'Account UUID'. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('an account') but does not need to, given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reset') and identifies the resource ('all rate limits for an account') with a clear target state ('system defaults'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like admin_set_limits and admin_get_limits by indicating a restore-to-default action.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when wanting to restore defaults), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs admin_set_limits or admin_get_limits, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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