engram_kg_invalidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'end' implies the triple is marked invalid rather than physically deleted, which is mildly useful, but it does not say whether the operation is reversible, whether subject/predicate/object must already exist, or what conflict/not-found behavior looks like.

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?

The single sentence is short but under-specified rather than truly concise; there is no front-loaded context about effect or scope, just a restatement of the name.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine parameter meanings, side effects, or error conditions from what is provided.

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, and the description explains none of them. The purpose of 'ended' (a string, likely a timestamp or flag) is particularly opaque and undocumented anywhere.

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 verb ('Invalidate') and resource ('KG triple'), and the parenthetical '(end)' hints at temporal rather than hard deletion. However, it gives no differentiation from closely related siblings like engram_kg_add, engram_supersede, or engram_dispute, so an agent must infer which mutation is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus engram_supersede, engram_dispute, engram_kg_add, or engram_correct, all of which presumably operate on KG facts. No prerequisites or preconditions are stated.

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