supersede_decision

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destruction (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context: writes with a prefix, marks old as superseded, and default-hides the old decision. No contradictions.

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?

Three terse sentences that front-load the main action, then detail behavioral traits and search visibility. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers the main effects (writing, superseding, hiding) and includes the format prefix. Lacks mention of error cases or prerequisites (e.g., old_id must exist), but with 7 parameters and 3 required, the description is fairly complete.

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 coverage is high (86%) with good parameter descriptions. The description adds specific format for the prefix ('[supersedes #<old_id>: <reason>]'), which is not in the schema, providing additional clarity.

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 action: 'retire old_id and link to a replacement' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reaffirm_decision' and 'record_decision' by explicitly describing the superseding behavior.

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?

Usage is implied—to retire a decision and create a replacement—but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Alternatives like 'consensus_propose_supersession' exist among siblings but are not mentioned.

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