graph_supersede

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the responsibility. It discloses that the old node becomes stale, a new node is created with a supersedes relation, and history is preserved. This is sufficient for understanding side effects, though it does not mention potential impacts on related data or permissions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct value: action, usage context, and behavioral outcome. No wasted words.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description does not specify return value. However, the tool's mutation behavior is well explained, and the description covers key aspects of usage and effect. Slightly incomplete but adequate for most agents.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so 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 tool's action: 'Supersede an old node with a new one'. It specifies the mechanism (marks old as stale, creates new with supersedes relation) and distinguishes it from siblings like graph_update_node or graph_delete_node by emphasizing history preservation.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when a decision or fact fundamentally changes'. It also explains the outcome (old node remains searchable but deprioritized). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool.

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