kg_invalidate_fact

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

The annotation marks the tool as destructive, and the description adds clarifying context by saying 'History is retained,' which indicates this is not a hard delete. It does not fully describe downstream query effects or how reason and project are used, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 very short, front-loaded with the main action, and followed by a relevant retention note. It is concise and free of filler, though it is too terse to cover parameter semantics or usage alternatives.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no mention of return values, errors, or optional arguments, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool beyond knowing that it closes a currently valid fact and preserves history.

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%, and the description does not explain subject, predicate, object, reason, or project. The parameters are only listed as bare string fields, leaving an agent with no guidance about what values are expected or how they relate to the fact being invalidated.

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 identifies a specific action ('Close') and a specific resource ('currently-valid fact assertion'), and it adds the useful behavior that history is retained. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like kg_add_fact and kg_timeline, though it relies on 'close' rather than the tool's 'invalidate' wording.

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 phrase 'currently-valid' implies the precondition that the fact must be active before invalidation. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over other KG tools, leaving usage mostly implied rather than directly guided.

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