supersede_fact

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, explaining that the old fact is closed the day before effective_from, the replacement inherits the old end date, confidence/sensitivity inherit when omitted, and both rows commit atomically. These behavioral details are critical and not available from annotations or schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently adds the key behavioral constraints and transaction guarantee. Every sentence carries meaning; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly: the scenario, the alternative, the exact closure/inheritance behavior, parameter semantics, and atomicity. An output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates substantially by explaining effective_from semantics, the inheritance behavior of confidence and sensitivity, and the fact that person, predicate, and replacement end date cannot be changed. fact_id and new_value are not explicitly described, but their meaning is clear from the operation's purpose.

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 phrase, 'Close a fact that was true and open its replacement from an effective date,' which precisely identifies the operation and resource. It clearly distinguishes supersede_fact from correct_record by stating that it applies when a value was historically correct, not simply wrong.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use when a stored value was historically correct and the real-world state changed. It also names the alternative, correct_record, for the case where a value was simply wrong, and lists what cannot be changed in this operation.

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