invalidate_relation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It states the effect (sets validUntil) but does not explain matching criteria (e.g., what if multiple active relations match?), confirmation, reversibility, or validation steps. This 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 three sentences: purpose, mechanism, and example. It is concise, front-loaded, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should cover more behavioral details. It covers the core concept and gives an example, but lacks prerequisites, edge cases, and differentiation from deletion. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already documents parameters. The description adds the example and context of temporal invalidation, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions. 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The description clearly states the tool marks a relation as no longer valid by setting a validUntil timestamp. It provides a specific example ('Kai no longer works on Orion') and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_relations by emphasizing temporal invalidation.

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 says 'Use for temporal facts that have ended,' which implies the appropriate context, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., delete_relations for permanent removal). The guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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