chap.control.supersede

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses a non-obvious side effect: the original task is not deleted; it moves to 'superseded' and remains linked to its replacement. This is valuable, though it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or audit-related side effects.

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 one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and then gives the key postcondition, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the rich schema, the description covers the core semantics of the operation and the most important postcondition. It does not explain return values or failure behavior, but there is no output schema, and the schema already covers the payload. Additional guidance on when not to supersede would make it fully 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?

The input schema already documents all five parameters with detailed descriptions, including the nested successor_task object and the audit behavior of reason. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb phrase, 'Replace a task with a successor in one call,' and clearly states the resulting state: the original moves to 'superseded' and stays linked to the replacement. This distinguishes it from related tools like task.update, task.complete, or control.cancel.

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 purpose strongly implies when to use this tool: when a task should be replaced by a successor rather than completed or cancelled. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternatives, leaving some selection reasoning to the agent.

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