Supersede memory

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) but not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds the important context that history is preserved via a link, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not clarify what happens to the old record, whether permissions are needed, or what the response contains. Given minimal annotation coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 front-loads the core action and the key differentiator (preserving history). It is efficient and well-structured, though it could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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?

With 7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description is far from complete. It lacks parameter explanations, return behavior, side effects beyond preserving history, and any differentiation from siblings. The agent would have to rely on the schema alone, which is insufficient given zero coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions none of the seven parameters (id, text, kind, tags, source, expiresAt, namespace). The agent gets no guidance on what each parameter means or how they affect the operation, making this a severe gap.

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 verb 'replace' and the resource 'memory', and adds the specific nuance of 'linked current record while preserving history', which distinguishes it from a plain delete or update. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like update_memory, delete_memory, or consolidate_memory. No mention of alternatives or conditions. The intended usage is only implied by the action described.

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