mind_fact_invalidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a 'soft-delete' (vs. hard delete) and its intended semantic purpose (superseding a changed single-valued fact), which adds real context beyond the name. However, it omits permissions, reversibility details, and side-effect scope for the mutation.

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?

Front-loaded and efficient: deprecation and replacement come first, purpose follows. Slightly redundant with the nested parentheses around the purpose clause, but no wasted sentences.

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 deprecated single-param tool with no output schema, the essential information an agent needs — that it is deprecated and what to call instead — is fully present. Only minor behavioral detail (permissions, reversibility) is absent.

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 100% and the sole 'id' parameter is documented in the schema ('Fact ID from mind_fact_query'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Soft-delete a fact by ID') and immediately front-loads a deprecation notice pointing to the replacement sibling 'mind_fact(action="invalidate")'. An agent can distinguish this from mind_fact, mind_fact_add and mind_fact_query without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: it names the exact replacement call and states this tool is 'Removed in v2.0'. The when-not-to-use condition and the concrete alternative are both spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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