kage_supersede

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

Discloses that both packets are mutated, old packet is withheld from recall but kept for lineage. Annotations show idempotentHint=true, and description aligns. Could mention idempotency implications, but overall clear.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states action, second provides usage guidance and behavioral effect. Highly efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description explains mutation behavior and side effects. Covers what happens to old and new packets. Slightly lacking in describing return value or confirmation, but sufficient for an idempotent mutation.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds that 'reason' is an optional human note recorded on the lineage edge, but this is marginal. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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The description clearly states the action: replacing a repo-local memory packet with a newer one, marking old as superseded, linking, and writing lineage edges. It distinguishes itself from deletion by saying 'use instead of deleting'.

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?

Explicitly provides usage scenarios: when new knowledge updates an old fact or to resolve contradictions surfaced by kage_conflicts. Also advises against deletion.

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