Erinys Supersede

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does not say whether the old observation is deleted, archived, or retained in lineage (erinys_lineage exists as a sibling), whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens if old_id does not resolve. Only the mutation itself is implied.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, so there is nothing to trim. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the terseness comes at the cost of information the agent needs, and the sentence does not front-load scope constraints.

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?

For a three-parameter required mutation with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but it still omits the fate of the old record, lineage behavior, and error conditions that matter for a supersede operation.

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 schema gives only names and types. The description loosely maps 'old_id' to the old observation and 'new_content' to the updated fact, but 'reason' is entirely unexplained and no format, length, or constraint hints are offered for any parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('supersede') and its object ('an old observation') and implies a replacement fact. It does not distinguish supersede from erinys_update, erinys_forget, or erinys_reinforce, so the agent is left inferring that this is a replacement rather than an update or removal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use supersede rather than erinys_update or erinys_reinforce, no prerequisites (e.g., old_id must already exist), and no mention of erinys_conflict_check as a related tool. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the one-line description.

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