invalidate_episode

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most important trait - the record is retained rather than deleted - but says nothing about permissions, whether the action is reversible, or how the invalidation interacts with existing links and history.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its non-destructive nature before the sibling routing. Every sentence carries information, with only minor redundancy between 'no longer true' and 'when something ends'.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the non-destructive framing is stated. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and zero documented parameters, the definition omits reversibility, permissions, and any hint of how to set the temporal and reason fields.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description had to compensate and does not. Neither the required episode_id and vault_name nor the optional reason and valid_to are explained, and valid_to is especially notable since it directly encodes 'when it ended' yet is never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark an episode as no longer true') plus a key scope qualifier ('without deleting it'), which separates it from a delete operation. The final sentence further separates it from supersede_episode, so an agent can choose among siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit positive condition ('when something ends and nothing replaces it') and an explicit alternative with rationale ('if a corrected version exists, use supersede_episode so the two stay linked'). It does not cover other nearby cases such as disputing or confirming an episode, but the core routing guidance is clear.

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