mark_superseded

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the primary effect (no longer in recall, remains in history) and mentions the optional replacement pointer. However, it does not disclose potential side effects on the entry itself (e.g., status change), any prerequisite like existence of replaced_by_id, or error behavior. It is adequate but not exhaustive for a mutation tool.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose and the key behavioral effect are front-loaded, and the optional parameter is mentioned concisely. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple two-parameter tool, an existing output schema (per context signal), and no annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it. It covers the key effect and the optional parameter. It could mention edge cases (e.g., calling on already superseded entries) but that's minor given the simplicity.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that the tool optionally points to a newer replacement id, which maps to replaced_by_id. The entry_id role is implicit as the target memory. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it doesn't specify formats or constraints (e.g., whether replaced_by_id must exist).

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The description states a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('an outdated memory') with a clear outcome ('superseded'), and distinctively notes that it stops appearing in recall but stays in history. This distinguishes it from similar memory mutation tools like delete_memory or flag_stale without needing to inspect schemas.

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 when to use it (when a memory is outdated and being replaced) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like delete_memory or flag_stale. It gives the effect (stops appearing in recall, stays in history) which helps an agent infer context, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of' guidance.

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