Reset associative memory to baseline by pruning synaptic weights, restoring a clean state for new learning. Requires confirmation; optional backup before reset.
Resets or prunes the synaptic weights and associative memory back to baseline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| backup | No | Whether to create a backup file before resetting. | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be set to true to confirm reset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds context about what is affected ('synaptic weights and associative memory') and the goal ('back to baseline'). It does not fully clarify the 'reset vs. prune' ambiguity or backup behavior, but the schema covers the backup parameter.
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, focused sentence with no filler. It states the action and target immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 destructive tool, the essential call contract is covered by the annotations and 100% schema coverage. The description could be more complete by clarifying whether the operation is a full reset or a selective prune, but overall the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'backup' and 'confirm' are documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.
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 specific verbs ('resets or prunes') and identifies the exact resource ('synaptic weights and associative memory'). It clearly communicates a mutating operation that is distinct from the sibling query/inspection tools.
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 when to use the tool: when memory should be returned to baseline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like inspect_memory_state or query_associative_memory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.