supersede_claim

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

Annotations only declare that this mutates (readOnlyHint=false) without destroying (destructiveHint=false); the description goes further by stating the non-obvious outcome that the prior version remains in history while the new one becomes current. That is exactly the behavioral trait an agent needs before overwriting knowledge, though nothing is said about required permissions, validation failures, or what the response contains.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and immediately stating the retention rule. Nothing in it is redundant with the name.

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 mutation's lifecycle effect is covered and an output schema exists, but with five parameters at 20% coverage the description should explain how optional fields (text, confidence, evidence_ids) compose the replacement version. An agent can call it, but only with trial-and-error on the payload.

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 description coverage is only 20% (just evidence_ids: 'Replaces the evidence list if given'), yet the description adds nothing about the five parameters. Key questions are unanswered: whether text must be supplied to form the new version, what omitting text/confidence does, and why reason is mandatory.

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 names a concrete operation on a concrete resource ('Correct a claim') and pins down the versioning semantics: the old version is retained, the new one becomes current. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like retract_claim or record_claim, so an agent must infer that this is 'amend in place' rather than 'withdraw' or 'create'.

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?

'Correct a claim' implies the triggering situation (the claim is wrong or outdated), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (retract_claim for withdrawal, record_claim for a fresh assertion). The agent is left to guess the boundary between superseding and retracting.

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