desktop_reset

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already indicates a mutating operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the runtime is reset and input is released, while reassuring that user applications remain open. It does not detail exactly what state is lost, but it goes beyond the annotation.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the safety boundary in a concise follow-up. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and a critical safety guarantee. It could be more explicit about what persistent runtime state is lost or whether the reset is reversible, but the core information needed to invoke the tool is present.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed or expected.

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 names the specific action 'Reset' and the resource 'persistent desktop runtime,' adding 'release input' to capture the secondary effect. It also explicitly states what it does not do ('Does not close user applications'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like desktop_exec or desktop_cancel.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: resetting the persistent runtime and releasing input. It does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions, but the simple, well-defined action is enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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