memory_invalidate

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden, and it delivers richly: discloses Zep invalidation semantics (sets invalid_at without delete, preserves auditable trail), states post-invalidation behavior (no longer injected, absent from memory_list by default), and reveals the multi-match no-op guard policy. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear English summary, then adds Chinese operational context. The content is dense but purposeful—each section earns its place (semantics, behavior, dual-identification methods, no-op rules). Slightly verbose in the middle section but no wasted words.

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?

Has output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and the description explains return/behavior expectations: no-op for 0 or multiple matches, candidate list returned on ambiguity. Given tool complexity (dual-location, uniqueness constraints, invalidation semantics), the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the 'exactly one of two' relationship (memory_id XOR content_match) and the unique-match constraint on content_match, going beyond what the schema's individual descriptions convey.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Invalidate a direction-layer memory — mark it invalid without deleting.' Clearly distinguishes from delete, explicitly states it sets invalid_at without removal, and contrasts with memory_list for what happens after invalidation. Well differentiated from siblings like memory_add, memory_list.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when direction-layer preference is stale/overruled'), describes two mutually-exclusive location methods (memory_id vs content_match), and gives clear when-not (0 or multiple matches result in no-op). Even describes the specific scenario of being quota-limited and needing to avoid an extra lookup.

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