brain_supersede

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation retires an old note and preserves history, but it does not explain reversibility, permissions, what happens to the old note or links, or other side effects of this mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted wording. The behavioral rule is compact and relevant.

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?

Although an output schema exists, this is a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the required 'reason' parameter, what 'retire' actually does, or the side effects, leaving an agent under-informed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely distinguishes 'old' and 'new' as notes and entirely omits the required 'reason' parameter and accepted identifier formats.

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The description uses a specific verb ('Retire') and resource ('outdated note') and clarifies the relationship to a newer note. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as brain_encode or brain_read, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It implies the tool should be used when a note is outdated and a newer one exists, and adds the rule 'Never edit history in place.' However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool versus brain_encode or brain_read.

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