invalidate_observation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects (creates observationMeta), error conditions (throws if not found), but omits authorization needs, reversibility, or what happens to related data. Partial disclosure.

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 sentences with zero waste. The prefix 'η.4.4' is optional but harmless. Front-loaded with key action and critical behaviors.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers main behaviors (throws, creates meta) but lacks return value, prerequisites, or explanation of what observationMeta is. Adequate but incomplete.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema for individual parameters, but it does explain the overall interaction (meta creation, throw). Baseline 3.

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The description clearly states the action ('Mark a specific observation as no longer valid'), the resource ('observation on an entity'), and includes unique details like creating a parallel observationMeta entry and throwing on missing observation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_observations'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies usage for invalidation rather than deletion, but fails to guide the agent away from similar tools like delete_observations.

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