replace

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavior by stating the operation is atomic and reports dependents needing review. It stops short of saying whether the old record is deleted or retained, what permissions are needed, or whether the replacement is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each clause earns its place by conveying successor creation, atomic supersession, and dependent reporting.

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 output schema exists, so return-format details are not required in the description. However, for a multi-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage, the description omits concurrency semantics, parameter usage, and guidance versus alternatives, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 40%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond referring conceptually to an 'old record' and 'successor'. It leaves initiative, expected_revision, and request_id without added meaning, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 specific verbs ('create', 'supersede') and resources ('old record', 'explicit successor'), making the replacement operation clear. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like revise, but the core purpose is distinguishable from an in-place edit.

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 use when replacing a record with a new successor, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus siblings such as revise, task_update, or review. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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