supersede

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full disclosure burden and does a good job: it states the side effect (frontmatter gains superseded_by/valid_to/status) and reassures that the file itself is not deleted. It does not mention whether existing frontmatter is overwritten or whether write permissions are required, but the core behavioral trait is explicit.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the main verb and object first and key constraints in parentheticals. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, when to call it, and how to reference notes.

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 or output schema, the description provides the preconditions, behavior, and input forms needed to invoke it. It does not discuss return values or failure behavior, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical; the main gap is the absence of any mention of the reverse parameter in the description, though the schema covers it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a useful identifier-format note ('stems, slugs, or paths') and the adjudication context, but it does not materially deepen parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 opening clause 'Mark an OLD note as replaced by a NEW one, WITHOUT deleting it' states a specific action on a specific resource and immediately separates it from deletion or list-only siblings. The 'invalidate-don't-delete' framing reinforces the intended semantic distinction.

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 an explicit precondition: call it only after adjudicating that NEW genuinely replaces OLD, with an example source (list_conflicts). It does not, however, name an alternative tool to use when those criteria are not met, so the guidance stops short of full alternatives/exclusions.

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