supersede_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating tool. It does not say whether superseding is reversible, whether the record is archived or deleted, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the record is already superseded; only the optional replacement link is disclosed.

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; the core action is stated first and the optional linkage second.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a state-changing tool with no annotations the description should have covered irreversibility, permissions, or the effect on the linked replacement. It remains minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the meaning and optionality of replacement_id ('optionally linking its active replacement'), which is the least self-evident parameter, but project_path and record_id receive no explanation beyond their names.

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States a specific verb-plus-resource ('mark obsolete memory superseded') that is readily distinguishable from siblings like record_memory, search_memory, and dispute_memory. It also names the key side effect (linking a replacement), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with dispute_memory.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'obsolete' — the agent infers this is for records that are no longer current — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or routing between this and dispute_memory, which is a natural alternative for contested records.

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