supersede

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses atomic OCC update, status field changes, and forward-only behavior. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or idempotency, but the key behavioral traits are well covered.

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 informative sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. No wasted words; each sentence adds critical context.

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?

The description lacks any mention of return values, which is a gap given no output schema. It explains the mutation but not what the agent should expect as a response. Otherwise, it is complete within its scope.

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100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the effect: 'atomic single OCC update on the OLD doc; sets status="superseded", superseded_by, and superseded_reason.' This links parameters to the update behavior, adding value beyond 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The description clearly states the verb 'mark superseded' and the resource 'existing memory document'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting the forward-only nature and that back-links are derived later, making it distinct from linking tools.

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 provides context: 'Forward-only — the replacement doc is NOT touched' and mentions back-links are derived at query time, implying when to use this. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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