marrow_supersede_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'atomically' which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not disclose what happens to the old memory (e.g., whether it is deleted, archived, or versioned), any permission requirements, or the nature of the replacement. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is zero wasted wording.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It explains the basic operation but omits critical context such as what happens to the previous version, whether this is destructive or reversible, and what the return/response indicates. Despite having 6 parameters, no usage context is given beyond the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify how parameters like actor, source, or note relate to the atomic replace operation. The description's mention of 'new version' aligns with the text parameter but adds no extra meaning.

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 ('Atomically replace') and the resource ('a memory') with a specific outcome ('with a new version'). It is not a tautology and provides a clear verb+resource+scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like marrow_update_memory or marrow_mark_outdated, so it misses an opportunity for differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include update_memory and mark_outdated, explicit usage guidance would be valuable but is entirely absent.

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