supersede_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions error conditions but does not describe side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or impact on related entities.

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 concise single sentence with error conditions appended. It front-loads the core action and avoids unnecessary words, making it efficient for an 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 no output schema, no annotations, and moderate complexity (mutation with state constraints), the description provides basic purpose and error states but lacks usage context, prerequisites, and behavioral details. It is adequate but not fully 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Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions ('Decision being superseded', 'DecisionId of the replacement'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting baseline but not exceeding.

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The description clearly states the action ('Mark an accepted decision as superseded by another'), the resource ('accepted decision'), and the effect ('superseded'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like accept_decision and reject_decision by specifying the superseding 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?

It provides error conditions (illegal-transition when target not accepted, not-found when missing) which imply when not to use, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or required preconditions.

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