supersede_learning

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it deprecates old memory and creates new one, and returns {found_old: bool, new_id: str}. However, it does not explain potential side effects (e.g., deletion, reversibility), how learning_type affects behavior, or error cases if old_id is not found.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action and usage context. It includes parameter explanations and return type. Minor redundancy: 'old_id is the ChromaDB document ID' could be integrated into the first sentence, but overall efficient.

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 and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains the return type but not error handling or behavior when old_id is missing. The reference to store_memory provides context, but learning_type remains undefined, and side effects are unmentioned.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for old_id (ChromaDB document ID from conflicts) and repo_path (optional absolute path). However, it fails to describe new_text (assumed from context) and learning_type (non-obvious, with default 'fact'), leaving a gap for agent understanding.

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 deprecates an existing memory and replaces it with corrected text, explicitly referencing the source as the conflicts list from store_memory, which distinguishes it from siblings like store_memory itself.

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 explicitly says 'Use when store_memory returns a conflict that contains incorrect or outdated information', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools beyond the implied store_memory.

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