jambavan_memory_invalidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the action (mark as invalidated, don't delete) but omits behavioral details like whether invalidated memories are still retrievable in searches or how they appear in graph queries. The phrase 'temporal history' lacks specifics on the mechanism.

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?

Two tightly-written sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states the action and constraint, second gives usage context. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple tool with no output schema and two self-documenting parameters, the description covers purpose and usage. It could detail what 'invalidated' means for retrieval, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to understand the primary use case.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'without deleting the OKF document' but that's about the tool's behavior, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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The description explicitly states 'Mark a memory as invalidated/superseded without deleting the OKF document', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling jambavan_memory_delete by emphasizing non-deletion and temporal history.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a durable fact changed and you want temporal history instead of silent overwrite.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context implies the alternative is silent overwrite via memory_store.

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