invalidate_observations

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

With annotations already declaring idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds concrete mechanics: it sets a status field and a timestamp, and optionally records a superseding belief. This gives context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences plus a header line, front-loading the purpose. No filler or redundant repetition of schema/annotations.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: it states the action, the exact state change, and the optional input semantics. It doesn't address edge cases like non-existent observations, but that level of detail is typically not required.

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 100%, and the description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already specifies (e.g., superseded_by matches 'Optional description of what replaced these beliefs'). It does mention the automatic invalidated_at date, but that's not a 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 tool's purpose: 'Mark observations as invalidated' with a specific state change ('Sets status='invalidated' and records invalidated_at date'). This distinguishes it from deletion siblings by framing it as a soft invalidation with belief revision tracking.

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 through 'belief revision tracking' and the optional 'superseded_by' parameter, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over delete_observations or revise. No when-not guidance or alternatives are provided.

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