revalidate_fact_sources

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

No annotations provided, so description fully discloses behavior: resets status, returns count, accepts optional filters. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the mutation is reversible (reset to active).

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 with three short paragraphs. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No filler.

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?

Given the tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains return value ('Count of sources revalidated'). It covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. Could mention if limits apply, but overall 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 0%, but the description's 'Args:' section adds meaning: explains source_id as optional UUID for a note/glossary entry, and source_type as optional filter with examples ('note', 'glossary', 'document'). This goes beyond the schema.

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 resets modified/deleted sources back to active after re-verification. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_facts_with_stale_sources.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after manually verifying that sources are still valid,' providing clear context and when to use. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but for this tool, no alternatives are needed.

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