memory_supersede

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the old entry is kept but flagged superseded, that retrieval ranks the correction higher and shows both together, and explains the exact matching algorithm (exact-text first, embedding fallback). This is thorough and transparent.

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 sentences: purpose, behavior, and return value. Front-loaded with the main action, no redundant words, and each sentence earns its place. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and only 2 simple parameters, the description covers the essential operational details: how matching works, what happens to the old memory, and what the return object contains. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 descriptions are empty (0% coverage), but the description clarifies old_text semantics by noting that 'a close paraphrase of old_text works,' and new_text is clearly implied as the replacement. It could be more explicit in naming both parameters, but the context makes the meanings clear enough.

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 clearly states the tool's core function: 'Mark a stored memory obsolete and record its replacement.' This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_store (which stores new memories) and memory_forget (which removes memories). The verb 'supersede' is specific and the description explains the intended effect on retrieval.

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 when to use this tool (to correct/update an existing memory) and describes the matching process, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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