supersede

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: the replacement document is not touched, back-links are derived at query time, and the operation is an atomic single OCC update on the old document that sets status, superseded_by, and superseded_reason. This is rich operational context for a destructive update.

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 dense and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. It immediately names the operation and follows with the most important constraints and effects.

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 three-parameter destructive mutation with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description supplies the necessary behavioral context: forward-only semantics, OCC atomicity, and the fields updated on the old document.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds only a light mapping by noting that the operation writes superseded_by and superseded_reason, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Mark an existing memory document as superseded by a replacement document." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar document-mutation siblings such as update_frontmatter or delete_note.

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 implies the usage context (retiring an old document in favor of a replacement) and clarifies the forward-only direction, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives to sibling tools.

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