mempalace_kg_invalidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Mark a fact as no longer true' but does not explain whether the fact is deleted, hidden, or simply tagged with an end date. The effect on future queries or reversibility is not mentioned, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word adds value, and the examples are efficient. No unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or how the knowledge graph changes. The examples help but leave gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides examples of what kinds of facts can be invalidated (injuries, jobs, houses), adding contextual meaning but not deepening parameter semantics beyond the schema. The 'ended' parameter is already well-described in the schema.

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 'Mark a fact as no longer true' with specific examples (ankle injury resolved, job ended, moved house). The verb 'invalidate' combined with 'fact' makes the purpose unambiguous, and the examples differentiate it from sibling tools like mempalace_kg_add.

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 when a fact is no longer true, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mempalace_kg_add. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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