reset_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the destructive scope ('every layer added so far'), which is the most important behavioral fact. However, it omits irreversibility (no undo), whether the project area/state is also cleared, or whether any confirmation is expected – gaps left open by the absence of 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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the destructive scope. No filler, nothing redundant, immediately actionable.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it clears but not the operational context an agent needs: reversibility, what state remains afterward (e.g., does it affect the project area?), or expected follow-up calls. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool; the description adds no misleading parameter implications.

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?

States a specific action (forget/reset) and its scope – the project shape and all layers added so far. This clearly separates it from siblings like remove_layer, add_layer, or get_map_state, which operate on individual layers or read state. The only weakness is the informal verb 'forget' and the slightly fuzzy term 'project shape' instead of 'reset'/'map state'.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives – notably remove_layer, which also removes layers but one at a time. An agent must infer that this is the wholesale reset path rather than reading it.

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