memory_invalidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full behavioral disclosure. It explains the bi-temporal update, history preservation, and that corrections surface in memory_checkout. This provides useful context about the tool's effect. However, it does not mention the need for an admin token or what happens if the entity doesn't exist.

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 concise, containing only two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (bi-temporal update with 4 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the core behavior and links to memory_checkout. However, it lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., entity must exist), and the optional admin_token parameter. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 50%, with only 'invalid_at' and 'admin_token' having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning for the parameters 'entity_name' and 'entity_type', which lack schema descriptions. The description should have compensated for the missing parameter documentation but did not.

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's purpose: 'Mark a fact as invalid at a given time (bi-temporal update).' It identifies the verb 'Mark' and the resource 'fact', and mentions the bi-temporal nature. It references memory_checkout as a related tool where corrections appear, providing some differentiation, but does not explicitly distinguish from other siblings like memory_append or memory_query.

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 invalidating facts while preserving history, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include memory_append (add facts) and memory_query (search), but no guidance on when to choose memory_invalidate over them.

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