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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: both documents receive a new version, and the old one is hidden from default queries unless include_lifecycle names superseded. It does not say whether this is reversible (e.g., via restore_document) or what happens to the previous version chain.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the query-visibility caveat. Slightly overloaded with the parenthetical query-behavior clause, but no waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the lifecycle effect is covered. However, for a destructive five-parameter mutation with zero schema documentation, leaving namespaces and reason unexplained leaves the definition short of 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?

Schema coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description explains only old_doc_key and new_doc_key. The reason, old_namespace, and new_namespace parameters are undocumented anywhere, and 'include_lifecycle' is mentioned but is not a parameter of this tool, which may confuse the agent.

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 gives a specific verb ('Mark ... superseded') plus both key resources, and explains the resulting state change ('both get a new version'). This clearly separates it from rename_document or archive_document, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself — supersede when a document is replaced by another — and the note about 2026-11 queries reveals the downstream effect. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., use rename_document vs archive_document instead).

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