dialectic_supersede

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: old claim moves to superseded state, evidence is preserved, quote seeds evidence with a specific source, and domain inheritance. However, it does not mention authorization requirements or error outcomes.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, side effects, and parameter behavior. No superfluous information; each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and only a flat output string described, the description adequately covers core functionality. However, it lacks details on validation rules, error conditions, and the exact format of the output string beyond the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that old_claim_id and new_claim are required, domain defaults to empty and inherits from old if empty, and quote seeds evidence. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's field names and types.

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 purpose: retire an old claim and register a new one that refines or replaces it. The verb 'supersede' and resource 'claim' are specific, and the description differentiates itself from sibling tools like dialectic_claim (which presumably creates new claims).

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?

While the description implies usage for superseding claims, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for when not to use it. No sibling comparisons or exclusions are given.

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