invalidate_upstream

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core effect (status transition from VERIFIED to NEEDS_REVISION) and scope (walking ancestors). However, it leaves ambiguity about whether the leaf itself is affected, what happens to non-VERIFIED ancestors, and whether the operation is reversible or has side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the object (dependency ancestors) and the action (flip status). Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is a model of efficiency.

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 relatively simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description still leaves critical context missing. It does not mention return values, error behavior (e.g., missing leaf_id, no ancestors), or whether the leaf itself is affected. More detail about the traversal and status update semantics would make the description 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?

The schema only provides the parameter name leaf_id with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description implicitly suggests that leaf_id is the starting point for walking ancestors, but it never explicitly defines the parameter, expected format, or its relationship to the dependency graph. This is insufficient for a tool with one required parameter.

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 action: walk dependency ancestors and flip their status from VERIFIED to NEEDS_REVISION. It distinguishes itself from sibling verify_upstream, which likely does the opposite. However, it does not explicitly frame the purpose around 'invalidation' beyond this status transition, which leaves a bit of ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_status or verify_upstream. The description is purely action-oriented and does not mention the context in which invalidation is appropriate (e.g., when a dependency is outdated) or any preconditions.

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