kremis_retract

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action (decrement weight) without revealing side effects, idempotency, error handling, or what happens if the edge does not exist. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's function without extraneous words. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by covering return values, prerequisites, or operational constraints. It fails to mention what is returned (if anything) or how errors are handled, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for invocation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (source entity ID and target entity ID). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the edge aspect. Baseline 3 applies because 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?

The description clearly states the action: decrementing the weight of an edge between two entities, with synonyms like edge invalidation or signal retraction. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like kremis_ingest (likely for adding edges) and kremis_lookup (querying).

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?

The description implies usage for reducing edge weight or retracting signals but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kremis_ingest or kremis_lookup. No when-not context or prerequisite conditions are given.

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