rlm_memory_supersede

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'marks' a record as superseded but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the old record is deleted, archived, or still accessible), permissions required, or the impact of missing migration maps. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It avoids verbosity, but could benefit from a slightly more structured format, such as listing key conditions (e.g., 'Requires migration maps for legacy IDs'). Still, it is efficiently packed.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, error messages). It does not. The concept of 'superseded' is not defined operationally, leaving the agent unsure about the tool's impact on memory state. For a complex manipulation tool, this is incomplete.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that legacy memory IDs are accepted if migration maps exist, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Legacy or V2' phrasing. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints of the IDs beyond what the schema provides.

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The description clearly states the action ('Mark one Memory V2 record as superseded'), the resource ('Memory V2 record'), and a distinguishing detail ('Accepts legacy memory IDs if migration maps exist'). Among sibling tools like rlm_memory_invalidate and rlm_memory_verify, this uniquely identifies a supersede operation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rlm_memory_invalidate. It hints at a precondition (migration maps) but does not elaborate on when or why to use supersede over other memory management operations. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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