prolog_reset_layer

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It discloses that core and agent layers are permanent (cannot be reset), but doesn't specify side effects, authorization needs, or whether the action is reversible.

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 with no redundancy. Front-loads the key action and immediately provides critical context about permanence.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and constraints. It could mention that clearing is destructive and irreversible, but is otherwise adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by clarifying which layer values are valid (session or scratch) and explicitly stating that core/agent are not, going beyond the schema's 'string' type.

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?

Description clearly states it clears a session or scratch layer, and distinguishes permanent layers (core, agent) from resettable ones. This differentiates from sibling tools like prolog_query or prolog_assert.

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?

Implies use for session or scratch layers only, via the parenthetical about permanent layers. However, no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like prolog_retract.

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