dialectic_supersede

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: old claim becomes superseded with evidence preserved, quote seeds evidence, domain inheritance, and elicitation confirmation on capable hosts. Annotations only indicate mutability, so description adds significant value.

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?

Concise and well-structured: front-loaded with the main action, followed by conditionals and a return format example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 complexity of superseding claims, the description covers mutations, evidence handling, optional parameters, host-dependent behavior, and return format. No gaps remain despite lack of output schema details beyond the return example.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the purpose of all four parameters: old_claim_id, new_claim, quote, and domain, including default behavior when optional parameters are empty.

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 it retires an old claim and registers a new one that refines or replaces it, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dialectic_claim or dialectic_evidence.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use (to refine or replace), what happens with quote and domain, and mentions elicitation behavior. Lacks explicit exclusion scenarios but is otherwise thorough.

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