ddflow_decision_supersede

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that decisions are never edited or deleted, so this operation does not modify or destroy the original decision—it only marks a replacement relationship. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not cover reversibility or error cases.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential domain context. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and the underlying immutability principle. It could mention what happens after success, but given the low complexity and clear schema, it is adequately 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 each parameter already defined ('id' as the decision being replaced, 'by' as the replacement, 'reason' as why it changed). The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the overall purpose, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark'), a clear resource ('a decision'), and specifies the action ('replaced by a newer one'). It also explains the domain model (decisions are never edited or deleted), which differentiates this tool from editing/deleting and from sibling tools like decision_add or decision_list.

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 implies when to use the tool (marking a decision as replaced) and hints at the prerequisite that a newer decision must exist ('a reversal is a new decision that names the old one'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using it. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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