memory_supersede

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does reveal an important trait: the old fact is not wiped but retained in history. It does not clarify the resulting status of the old memory, whether the new memory must already exist, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

One short sentence states both the primary operation and the most valuable behavioral consequence with no filler. Every word is functional.

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 two-parameter memory operation, the description is minimally viable: it communicates the main action and the history-preserving behavior. It stops short of guiding the agent on prerequisites, expected outcomes, or return values, which matters because no output schema or annotations are available.

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%, and the description does not explicitly map the two required IDs to 'new memory' and 'old memory'. The parameter names carry most of the meaning, and the description adds only indirect context by referring to an outdated fact and retaining history.

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The description uses a specific action ('Replace') and a clear object ('an outdated fact'), and the qualifier 'while retaining its history' differentiates this from related memory operations such as memory_suppress or memory_store. The purpose is immediately identifiable.

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 'outdated fact' implies the appropriate use case: to exchange a stale memory for a current one. However, the description does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name an alternative tool for the comparison, leaving the usage context mostly inferred.

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