memory_check_supersedes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool evaluates supersedence based on validation history and can optionally create a SUPERSEDES edge. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'consistently succeeds' means quantitatively, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clarifying explanation, then a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value, but lacks details on behavioral nuances like error handling or validation criteria. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but some operational context is missing.

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 adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'memory_id' is explained as 'ID of the (potentially newer) memory to check', and 'create_edge' as 'Whether to create SUPERSEDES edge (default: True)'. This clarifies purpose beyond the schema's basic types, though it doesn't detail edge creation mechanics or ID format.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Check if a memory should supersede another') and resource ('based on validation history'), distinguishing it from siblings like memory_detect_contradictions or memory_validate_tool by focusing on supersedence evaluation rather than contradiction detection or validation 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('when a newer memory consistently succeeds where the older one failed on similar topics'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the context implies it's for supersedence checks rather than other memory operations.

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