Supersede memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'preserving history' but does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or what happens to the old memory (e.g., archived, linked). Lacks transparency on behavioral traits.

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 sentence of 12 words, which is brief but severely underspecified. It sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not cover parameter usage, return values, or edge cases, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description fails to explain any of the 7 parameters (id, text, kind, tags, source, expiresAt, namespace). It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is sparse. Essential information like required fields is missing.

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The description clearly states it replaces an outdated memory with a linked current record while preserving history. The verb 'replace' and resource 'memory' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like update_memory by emphasizing history preservation.

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 usage for outdated memories that need replacement while keeping history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like update_memory or delete_memory. No exclusions or scenarios are given.

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