Supersede decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real behavior: the old record is marked superseded and the two records are cross-linked, which is genuinely useful. It omits whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, and what happens to the old record's tags/files/rules.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the state change. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 13-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core write semantics but leaves parameter usage, permission requirements, and post-call state largely uncovered. It is minimally adequate rather than 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 description coverage is only 46% across 13 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, and it does not mention a single parameter. The agent learns nothing from the description about how 'id' targets the old record versus how the many decision-body fields (rules, requirements, tests, alternatives) are supplied for the new one.

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?

States a specific verb ('Replace') plus resource ('an existing decision/constraint') and the outcome ('new one'), so the agent understands this is a supersession writer rather than a plain create. It implicitly separates itself from record_decision, but never names it, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 phrase 'existing decision/constraint' implies you should call this only when an older decision needs replacing, which is enough to distinguish it loosely from record_decision. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement, and no mention of first needing an id from search_decisions.

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