supersede

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does explain the core mutation mechanics: a new node is created and a supersedes edge is added from successor to the old node, so old is retained as the edge target. It also states the new_type default. However, it does not mention permission requirements, whether the old node's status changes, or any failure behavior, leaving some behavioral gaps for a mutation tool without annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero waste. The primary operation is front-loaded, the alternative routing follows immediately, and the parameter note is a brief final fragment. 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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is created, how it is linked, and when to prefer the alternative. It omits return-value or error behavior, but without an output schema that is less critical; the remaining gap is minor side-effect detail on the old node.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters including the new_type default. The description repeats the optionality and default of new_type but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: replace a node with a new identity, connected by a supersedes edge. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling `revise`, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting both 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('when the change is large enough to warrant a new identity') and names the alternative tool (`revise`) with its opposite condition. Nothing is left to inference.

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