shadowgraph_supersede

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: nothing is deleted, repeats return the same result but still commit a revision, and superseded decisions are excluded from current context. This is especially useful because idempotentHint is false yet the call appears repeatable.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the operation, sibling differentiation, persistence behavior, and repeat semantics. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant wording.

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 two-parameter operation with a fully described schema and an output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: what it does, constraints, side effects, and repeat behavior. No missing information would prevent 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 coverage is 100% and both parameter descriptions are already detailed, stating which decision is replaced and which one replaces it, including validity constraints. The description adds little beyond the schema because the schema already conveys the semantic relationship and project-scope requirement.

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States a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('decision superseded by a replacement') with a project-scope constraint. It names sibling tools that handle other cases, so an agent can distinguish this operation without opening other definitions.

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?

Explicitly routes ordinary lifecycle moves to shadowgraph_update_status and other relationships to shadowgraph_link, clarifying when to choose this tool. It also notes the same-project requirement and the non-deletion behavior, giving the agent clear selection criteria.

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