erinys_supersede

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It does not explain what happens to the old observation (deleted, archived, linked), whether the operation is reversible, or any cascading effects. The word 'supersede' hints at mutation but leaves behavior opaque.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified for a tool with three required parameters. It is efficient but not appropriately sized given the complexity; it lacks structure to explain the operation.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks crucial context: no behavioral details, no parameter semantics, no mention of how it differs from update/save/reinforce. The one-liner is not complete enough to understand the tool's full effect.

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 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It implicitly maps 'old observation' to old_id and 'updated fact' to new_content, but entirely omits the purpose of 'reason'. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific verb 'supersede' and identifies the resource ('old observation') and the replacement ('updated fact'). It clearly conveys the action of replacing outdated data, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like erinys_update, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a scenario where an old observation is outdated, but lacks explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with related tools. Minimal guidance.

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