invalidate_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The term 'stale' is undefined, and the description does not explain what the invalidation entails (e.g., irreversible? affects other references?), leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it omits necessary detail for correct usage. While brevity is valued, under-specification reduces its utility.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain prerequisites, return values, or the effect on the system.

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?

The single parameter 'slug' is not described in the schema or the tool description. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify what a 'slug' is to aid correct invocation, but it does not.

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 ('force a reference stale') and the resource ('reference'), with a clear outcome ('next check advises re-research'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_for_update' and 'get_reference' by indicating a direct invalidation action.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a reference is known to be outdated or requires re-research. There is no mention of associated prerequisites or when invalidation is appropriate.

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