Marks a concept as superseded by another in Cartographer's versioned wiki, setting status=superseded, recording the successor, and returning findings.
Marks a concept as superseded by another: sets status=superseded and records the successor. Returns findings on it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Why | |
| source_id | Yes | Concept to supersede | |
| target_id | Yes | Replacement concept |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the state mutation (status=superseded) and the side effect of recording a successor, and notes it returns findings. It does not say whether the action is reversible, whether it requires the target to pre-exist, or the shape of 'findings'.
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?
A single lean sentence covering the action, the state change, and the return. No wasted words, though the terse 'Returns findings on it' is slightly vague.
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?
Adequate for a 3-parameter mutation tool but thin: no annotations, no output schema, and no detail on irreversibility, target existence requirements, or the returned findings. It leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description confirms the roles (source superseded, successor recorded) but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
Clear specific verb+resource ('marks a concept as superseded'), and it explains the mechanic (sets status=superseded, records successor). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like concept_patch, which could plausibly achieve the same status change, so it stays at 4 rather than 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not state whether this is preferable to concept_patch or concept_delete, nor any prerequisites (e.g. does the successor need to exist already).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.