synapse_invalidate

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key side effects: it sets valid_to rather than deleting, preserves history, affects default queries, and returns the number of affected facts. It does not cover error behavior or idempotency, but the main mutation is well explained.

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 compact and well-structured with short paragraphs for behavior, arguments, and return value. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 description covers the operation, all parameters, the return value, and the semantic implication for queries. It could mention what happens if no matching triple exists, but for a simple invalidation tool the provided context is sufficient.

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?

Every parameter is explained in the Args section: subject/predicate/object form the triple to invalidate, and ended is the ISO date/time defaulting to now. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly identifies the action: invalidating a previously-recorded fact in the knowledge graph by setting valid_to, with the distinction that the historical record remains intact and only default queries change. This differentiates it from query/recall siblings.

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 when to use it ('previously-recorded fact' no longer true) and contrasts with deletion, but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it. Still, the intended use case is clear enough.

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