memory_invalidate

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

Discloses that memory is marked invalid without deletion, retains audit trail, prevents future injection, and defaults to not appearing in memory_list. No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavioral aspects.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences (English and Chinese) front-loading the core action and key side effects. No wasted words, efficient for AI consumption.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description explains action, side effects, and usage context. Could mention prerequisites like existence of memory, but overall adequate for a simple invalidation tool.

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?

Only one parameter 'memory_id' with schema description in Chinese. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what schema already provides.

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 the tool invalidates a direction-layer memory without deleting, with specific verb 'invalidate' and resource 'direction-layer memory'. Distinguishes from memory deletion and other memory operations.

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?

Provides context for when to use (when direction-layer preferences are outdated/overridden) and what happens after invalidation (no longer injected, not shown in memory_list). No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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