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

The annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description usefully adds that history is retained and that there is no delete or edit action, which confirms the non-destructive behavior in operational terms. It does not explain what happens if the entry is already superseded or what the response contains.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a compact two-sentence description, and the history/no-delete caveat follows logically. The 'Living Projects —' prefix is product context rather than wasteful, though the description could be slightly tighter.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and only partial schema documentation, the description covers the core action, the kind values, and the retention behavior. It leaves out important operational details such as how to identify the entry number, what a successful supersede returns, and whether an already-superseded entry can be superseded again.

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 low at 25%; only home_path is described in the schema. The description compensates meaningfully for kind by enumerating the four accepted categories, and reason and entry_number are semantically self-explanatory from their names. Still, it does not clarify the expected format of entry_number or reason beyond that.

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The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a record entry as superseded.' It also names the four kinds (decision, rejection, definition, correction), which clarifies the scope better than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the capture_* siblings, which likely create new records rather than supersede existing ones.

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 'Mark a record entry as superseded' and by the statement that history stays with no button for deleting or editing it, suggesting this is the replacement mechanism rather than deletion. However, it never explicitly says when to use supersede versus capture_correction or capture_decision, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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