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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core effect: the entry is marked superseded and linked to a replacement. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, whether the superseded entry is hidden from future queries, or whether there are validation constraints on the replacement ID.

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 sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Mark a knowledge entry as superseded') and the secondary detail ('point to its replacement') is directly relevant. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with fully documented parameters, the description gives enough to understand the core operation. However, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, and the description does not clarify side effects on knowledge retrieval, reversibility, or whether the replacement must belong to the same project, leaving some operational uncertainty.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the replacement relationship, which the schema already captures via the supersededBy 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The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a knowledge entry as superseded and point to its replacement.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_knowledge, pin_knowledge, or link_knowledge because the concept of superseding with a replacement is unique and explicit.

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 the use case: when a knowledge entry is outdated and has a newer replacement, mark the old one as superseded. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, nor does it compare against alternatives such as update_knowledge or delete_entry, leaving some routing decisions to the agent.

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