engram_supersede

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotency ('Safe to retry') and the undo semantics, but omits whether this is destructive, what happens to the new memory, and any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clarifying example, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a four-parameter mutation.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry everything. It covers the core action, undo, and retry safety, but leaves the reason parameter and mutation side effects (what the superseded memory becomes) unaddressed.

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 50%: new_id and old_id are documented by the schema, and the description adds real meaning for undo ('make the old memory current again'). But 'reason' has no description in either place, leaving one parameter fully unexplained.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource: 'Record that one stored memory replaces another', fleshed out with a worked example ('we moved to PostgreSQL' replaces 'we use SQLite'). This clearly separates it from read/query siblings, though it never names the nearest alternatives (engram_correct, engram_dispute, engram_kg_invalidate), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 through the example scenario, and the undo sentence clarifies the reverse operation. However there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to sibling tools such as engram_correct or engram_dispute, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this one.

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