brain_supersede

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

No annotations are provided, so the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains atomicity ('single commit'), preserves the old note ('body preserved'), and describes the post-operation effect ('search withholds the old note with the reason "superseded by <to>"'). It also notes the relationship between `from` and `to` and the conditional creation of `to`.

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 moderately long (about 120 words) but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core action and then explains use cases and parameters. It is well-structured with distinct sections (purpose, parameters, alternatives). It is not as concise as the two-sentence TDQS example, but the added detail is justified for a multi-step atomic operation.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the tool's side effects and behavior thoroughly. It explains what happens to the old note, how search behaves afterward, and how to handle the `to` note creation. Combined with the clear parameter semantics, it is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema already covers all four parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how `from` and `to` relate, the purpose of `body` as an alternative way to create `to`, and that `reason` is recorded on the old note. This extra context justifies a 4 but not a 5 since the schema already gives basic descriptions.

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 a fact and replace it, atomically.' It uses a specific verb (supersede/retire) and identifies the resource (a fact/note). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling tool: 'Prefer this over brain_move for a value that changed (move is for relocation).'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'When a fact changes (a price, a term, a decision), DON'T just add a new note...' It also names an alternative (brain_move) and explains why to use this instead. It gives a clear workflow for both cases (to exists or not).

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