supersede

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotation 'destructiveHint: false' by explaining that the old memory is flagged but retained for audit. It also mentions return type, providing a clear picture of the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, one-line behavior, one-line usage, argument descriptions, and return type. All sentences are relevant and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (implied by context), the description covers purpose, parameters, usage, and return. It lacks error details, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: old_memory_id is 'UUID of the memory being replaced' and new_memory_id is 'UUID of the replacement memory.' This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Mark a memory as superseded by a newer one.' It uses a specific verb+resource (supersede a memory) and distinguishes itself from siblings like delete or forget by explaining that the old memory remains for audit purposes.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when information has been updated or corrected.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context of audit retention implies it is not a deletion tool.

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