plan_supersede

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the operation is a dry run, describes bitemporal invalidation (stamps valid_until, keeps A queryable for audit), and states it returns a plan_id. It does not cover input validation or plan lifetime, but the key side-effect profile is transparent.

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?

A single dense sentence packs the action, behavioral mechanism, non-applying caveat, and return value with no filler. Every clue 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 two-parameter preview tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: what it does, what changes it models, that it does not apply, and what the agent receives next. An agent can invoke it correctly and know the follow-up step.

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% and both parameters are already well described. The description adds the A/B role mapping and reinforcorces that old_id is kept and marked invalid, but this mostly restates schema semantics rather than adding new meaning.

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 opens with 'Preview superseding memory A with B', giving a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the non-applying preview nature with 'WITHOUT applying'. This clearly distinguishes it from apply_plan and other mutation siblings like plan_merge.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as a preview ('Preview... WITHOUT applying') and names the follow-up tool ('Returns a plan_id for apply_plan'), so the agent knows when to use it. It does not explicitly rule out related alternatives such as plan_merge, but the workflow context is clear.

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