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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains that the operation is non-destructive to history ('stays in history') and that the invalidated state is visible in traces. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or downstream effects, but the core side effect is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences deliver the action, rationale, side effect, matching behavior, and optional parameter semantics with no filler. The most important facts are front-loaded.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what it does, when to use it, how matching works, and that the history is preserved. It could add explicit guidance on when not to use it or what response to expect, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 67%, but the description adds important meaning beyond the schema: 'Matches by decision title prefix' clarifies how the decision parameter is used, and 'optionally record what supersedes it' supplements the superseded_by field. This compensates for the undocumented decision parameter.

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The description states a specific action ('Mark a decision invalidated/superseded') on a clear resource, and adds distinguishing behavior: the decision 'stays in history but is flagged in traces.' This clearly separates it from other decision-related sibling tools such as wyrm_decision_trace or wyrm_decision_downstream.

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 an explicit trigger example ('e.g. a ground truth it rested on changed'), which helps an agent know when invalidation is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the stated context is reasonably clear for this tool's narrow purpose.

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