supersede

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey side effects, and it does: the old fact remains in history but is excluded from default recall. It does not discuss reversibility, permissions, validation, or effects on the new relation, but the key behavioral outcome is disclosed.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately gives the most important behavioral consequence.

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?

It captures the core purpose and a key side effect, but it omits explanation of all four parameters, return behavior, and potential error conditions. Given no annotations and no output schema, the message could be more complete without becoming verbose.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'older fact' to old_relation_id and 'newer one' to new_relation_id, but it does not explain the required 'reason' parameter or the optional 'dataset' parameter beyond what their titles alone convey.

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The description states a specific action ('Mark an older fact as superseded by a newer one') with a clear resource, and adds meaningful result information ('old fact stays in history and leaves default recall'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like forget or mark_contradiction by describing the supersession semantics.

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 intended scenario: use when there is an older relation and a newer relation that should supersede it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools such as mark_contradiction or forget.

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