mnemostack_invalidate

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: non-destructive, sets timestamps without deletion/re-embedding, skips non-existent points, guard logic for index_root, and return fields. No contradictions.

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?

Five sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose. Every subsequent sentence adds necessary detail about behavior, edge cases, and return values. Structure is compact and well-organized.

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 has 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema shown, the description fully covers return values, side effects, and parameter behavior (e.g., skip logic, index_root guard). No gaps remain for an agent to misunderstand.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds semantic value beyond schema by explaining the owner guard ('so one root cannot invalidate another's chunks'), the distinction between system-time and world-time stamps ('optional, separate from the system-time invalidation stamp'), and the effect on recall.

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 opens with 'Mark memories stale by id, non-destructively,' giving a specific verb and resource. It also positions itself as a write tool parallel to a sibling, distinguishing its purpose from the other siblings (e.g., search, answer).

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 explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'invalidated facts drop out of default recall but stay reachable via include_invalidated / as_of.' It also gives instructions for multi-root collections ('Pass index_root...'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool.

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