plan_supersede

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: bitemporal invalidation, stamping valid_until, keeping old memory queryable, and that it returns a plan_id without applying. All key traits are transparently stated.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action. All parts are informative with no redundancy, making it highly concise.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, effect, and return value. It does not cover prerequisites or error conditions, but given the tool's preview nature and the presence of an apply_plan sibling, the information is sufficient for an agent to decide to use it.

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 100% with clear descriptions. The tool description adds operational context (e.g., 'superseding memory A with B') and explains the effect on parameters (stamping valid_until, keeping old). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 specifies a verb (preview superseding) and resource (memory), and distinguishes from sibling 'apply_plan' by explicitly stating it does NOT apply. It conveys the core action unambiguously.

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?

The description implies usage as a preview before applying, and mentions returning a plan_id for apply_plan. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other related siblings like 'plan_merge' or state when not to use it.

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