invalidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: history is preserved (non-destructive) and dependents are flagged for review. It omits anything about permissions, idempotency, or what the operation returns, so the disclosure is partial rather than 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the key constraint (non-destructive) is front-loaded before the side effect on dependents. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, so the description is the only source of information. It is too thin: it omits permission requirements, reversibility of the invalidation, and the meaning of both inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, and it does not. It never explains what 'id' identifies or what role the optional 'reason' plays, leaving both parameters semantically bare.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a memory invalid') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('without deleting its history'). It does not differentiate from the closest sibling, 'supersede', which is conceptually adjacent and would leave an agent guessing which to pick.

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 hints at a downstream review flow ('Dependents will require review') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or when to prefer 'supersede' or 'review_changes' instead. An agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

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