knowmind_end_fact

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description earnestly backs them up: 'nothing is deleted', 'no new entry is created', and repeated calls change nothing. It also adds the non-obvious recall interaction and the write-scope requirement, which the annotations do not carry. Only gap is no guidance on failure modes (unknown or already-ended target_id beyond the no-op case).

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 the decision rule, then consequences, then the alternative and the safety caveats. Dense and free of filler, though the single long run-on sentence with multiple semicolon clauses is slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is written, what disappears from recall, what remains queryable via recall_at_time, idempotency, and auth scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful semantics for valid_to ('now, or the given time') and thus backdating behavior, but says nothing about the reason field beyond what its schema text already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('End') and resource ('an entry'), plus the precise condition ('no longer applies and nothing replaces it') and the mechanism (sets valid_to, drops out of recall). It explicitly separates itself from knowmind_update_fact, so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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 both sides of the routing decision: use this when nothing replaces the entry (project closed, source withdrawn), and use knowmind_update_fact when a newer statement replaces it. Also notes the recall_at_time exception, which is the main reason an agent might hesitate to call it.

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