Invalidate a change group

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains that the next poll will resend all watched controls, not just changes, and that it forces a full snapshot. It does not mention potential side effects or idempotency, but is fairly transparent for a simple tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect, and includes a practical use case. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the purpose, effect, and a typical usage scenario. It is complete and leaves no major gaps for the agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with the parameter description 'Change group id'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 a change group so the next poll resends every watched control, not just changes. It gives a specific verb (invalidate) and resource (change group), and explicitly contrasts with normal incremental behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like qsys_poll_change_group.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Handy after a reconnect to force a full snapshot.' This tells the agent when to use it, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives like normal polling when incremental updates are sufficient.

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