aiworkhub_task_supersede

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the coordinator write gate, atomicity, no direct SQLite patching, the archival state change, the optional replacement link, and the receipt shape. It stops short of describing reversibility, failure modes, or detailed permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with 'COORDINATOR WRITE' and every sentence carries operational information. The receipt details are somewhat verbose given that an output schema exists, and the code-style formatting is slightly noisy, but the description is not bloated.

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?

Given no annotations, low schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context on the gate, atomic behavior, state transition, and response mode to call the tool correctly. It still omits ``reason`` semantics and sibling routing, which prevents a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains ``by`` as the optional replacement task id and defines the ``include_card`` modes (none, summary, full), but it does not explain ``reason`` or clarify ``by`` value format, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: supersede a stale/active task with a replacement. It also clarifies that the card is archived as ``superseded`` and that an optional replacement task id can be recorded. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as aiworkhub_manager_task_supersede or aiworkhub_task_archive, so it falls short of a 5.

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 by 'supersede a stale/active task' and the note that it is allowed even from processing. However, the description provides no explicit when-not guidance and does not name alternatives such as aiworkhub_manager_task_supersede or aiworkhub_task_archive.

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