memory_supersede

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the operation is atomic (replace-vs-two-calls distinction), requires launch-authorized writes, and the replacement resets retrieval/feedback statistics. Only missing piece is failure/rollback semantics if the atomic step fails.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the precondition, then the side effect. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers atomicity, authorization, and stat reset, which is solid. But with 0% schema description coverage it leaves the required evidence array and reason parameter undocumented, and says nothing about what the caller receives or whether the archived memory is recoverable.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does not. 'active memory' loosely maps to id and 'corrected replacement' to text, but evidence (1-5 items required) and reason are entirely unexplained in both the description and 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?

States a precise compound verb ('atomically archive ... and create its corrected replacement') plus resource and scope ('same scope'). This clearly separates it from siblings memory_archive (archive only) and memory_add (create only), so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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 precondition 'Requires launch-authorized writes' gives real context, and 'corrected replacement' implies it is for correcting an existing memory. However, it never says when to prefer this over memory_archive + memory_add or how it relates to memory_feedback, leaving the alternative-selection logic to inference.

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