Retire outdated claims so they stop appearing in context by marking them superseded, keeping history without serving them; optionally specify the replacing claim ID.
Retire outdated claims so they stop appearing in context: marks them superseded (kept for history, not served). Pass by with the claim id that replaces them, if any.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | Claim id of the newer fact (optional) | |
| ids | Yes | ||
| workspace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden and does disclose the most important behavioral trait: supersession is non-destructive ('kept for history, not served'). It leaves out permission requirements, idempotency, and what happens to unknown ids, but the core semantics are front and center.
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?
One tight sentence with the outcome ('stop appearing in context') front-loaded, followed by the mechanism and the optional parameter hint. Nothing is padded.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the effect but is silent on workspace scoping, error behavior for unknown ids, and whether the operation is reversible beyond 'kept for history'.
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 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'by' (which the schema already documents) and implicitly explains that 'ids' are the claims being retired, but says nothing about the 'workspace' parameter or the array/list format of ids.
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?
Uses a specific verb and resource ('retire outdated claims', 'marks them superseded'), and immediately distinguishes the operation from deletion by noting the records are 'kept for history, not served'. An agent can tell this apart from amem_remember and from a hypothetical hard-delete sibling.
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?
States the triggering condition clearly: claims are 'outdated' and should 'stop appearing in context'. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it (e.g., what to do instead if a claim was simply wrong rather than replaced).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.