auth.reset-guard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is manual and state-changing but does not mention authorization needs, side effects, reversibility, logging, or what happens if the guard is already cleared.

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 compact phrase with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and the target resource, making it very easy 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?

Although the tool has no parameters and has an output schema, this is a security-sensitive mutation with no annotations. The description is too sparse to tell an agent when to invoke it or what consequences to expect, especially alongside auth.risk-status.

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?

With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain inputs, so the baseline 4 applies. It correctly avoids inventing parameter-related details that don't exist.

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 action ('解除' = reset/clear) and a specific resource ('风控熔断状态' = risk-control circuit-breaker state). It is clearly not a status-check or login tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like auth.risk-status or signals.unban.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions under which resetting the guard is appropriate.

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