invalidate_thesis

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the record is kept and can be reactivated later, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key behavioral notes. Every word serves a purpose with no 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and key behaviors (retention and reactivability). The lack of output description is acceptable given the action-oriented nature; the agent can infer a success/error response.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Description specifies the verb 'invalidate' (标记为失效) and the resource 'thesis' (投資論點), with the additional context that records are retained and can be reactivated. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_thesis (permanent removal) or reactivate_thesis (undo).

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?

Description implies use for marking a thesis invalid while retaining it, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like delete_thesis. The existence of sibling tools provides context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on selection criteria.

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