invalidate_truth_assertion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the side effect (propagate REVALIDATION_REQUIRED to dependents), the prerequisite (canonical MODIFY work turn), and the preservation guarantee (historical truth preserved, evidence/history never deleted). This gives an agent essential operational context for a mutation 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 core action, followed by the prerequisite and preservation guarantee. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or 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?

The tool is complex, with five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description supplies important behavioral and prerequisite context, but it omits parameter semantics and usage alternatives. Given the output schema exists, return-value explanation is not required, but the definition remains incomplete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 five parameters, four of them required. It indirectly references assertion_id and turn_id, but provides no explanation of actor_id, reason, known_at, or the expected formats. Most parameter semantics are left to the bare schema, which has no property descriptions.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource: closing an assertion's known-time interval and propagating REVALIDATION_REQUIRED. This is more precise than a tautology and distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_truth_assertion and truth_at, though it does not explicitly name or contrast against those siblings.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires a canonical MODIFY work turn') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as record_truth_assertion, truth_assertion_status, or bitemporal_truth_status. There are no when-not-use conditions or explicit alternatives.

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