memory_revalidate_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that dry_run defaults to True (safe-by-default) and that 'void' is a state-changing operation, but it does not say whether voiding is reversible, whether records are deleted or flagged invalid, permission requirements, or blast radius.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the effect, followed by a compact Args block with no filler. The dry_run note is slightly redundant with the schema default but reinforces the safe mode.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and an undocumented 'actor' parameter, the description leaves out what 'voiding' actually does to the verification records and any audit/authorization implications.

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 description coverage is 0% and all 3 parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run's default and project's git-root auto-detection well, but the 'actor' parameter is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one third of the parameters with zero semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Void') and a precisely scoped resource ('verifications whose evidence changed since they were made'), which is distinctive from sibling memory_verify_tool and memory_gc_tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to run this versus memory_verify_tool or memory_gc_tool, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that verifications must exist first). The only usage-shaped hint is the dry_run default of True, which implies a safe inspection-first workflow but is not framed as guidance.

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