mempalace_kg_invalidate

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true). The description adds that the invalidation is exact and tenant-scoped, but does not discuss behavior if the fact doesn't exist or whether the operation is reversible. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Invalidate', with no filler words. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description is minimal but combined with schema and annotations gives enough for basic invocation. However, it doesn't specify behavior for missing facts, default end time, or the meaning of 'exclusive validity end time,' so it's not fully 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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about 'exact fact' which reinforces subject/predicate/object matching, but doesn't explain the `ended` parameter beyond schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool invalidates an exact tenant-scoped fact by setting a validity end time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mempalace_kg_add and mempalace_kg_query by specifying the 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?

The description implies usage for ending a fact's validity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites such as the fact needing to already exist.

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