Supersede an outdated decision with a replacement while preserving both nodes and their lineage for accurate tracking.
Explicitly supersede one decision with another while preserving both nodes and their lineage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_id | Yes | Existing replacement decision id. | |
| old_id | Yes | Existing decision id that is being superseded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that both decision nodes and their lineage are preserved. This helps an agent understand that the operation is not a simple deletion even though destructiveHint is true. It does not contradict the annotations and gives a meaningful guarantee about what survives the operation.
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 a single concise sentence that leads with the core action and then explains the important preservation guarantee. There is no wasted text, jargon, or repetition of the schema. Every phrase 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?
Given the tool's simple two-parameter surface, the absence of an output schema, and the annotations covering mutation/destructive behavior, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what kind of relationship to create while assuring that the original nodes remain intact. It could say more about side effects or return values, but for this tool's complexity it is adequate.
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?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both required parameters, old_id and new_id, with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but none is necessary because the schema carries the semantic weight. It correctly implies that these are the two existing decisions involved in the supersede operation.
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 verb and resource: 'Explicitly supersede one decision with another.' It also adds a meaningful qualifier that both nodes and lineage are preserved. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools like decision_commit or decision_scope, so an agent gets semantic clarity but not direct sibling routing.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the other decision_* siblings. The description implies the obvious use case—superseding an old decision with a new one—but never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer the intended context from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.