memory_supersede

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: the old memory is retained with status 'superseded' and retrieval returns the new one. That non-destructive, history-preserving semantic is genuinely valuable. It does not cover error handling for invalid IDs or permission requirements, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the behavioral/routing detail layered after. Every sentence 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?

No output schema or annotations exist, but the description compensates by explaining what happens to the superseded memory and what retrieval returns. It omits edge cases such as a nonexistent id and whether tags/type merge or fully override, keeping it just under fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including enum values and defaults. The description adds no per-parameter syntax, merge behavior, or tag semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Replace an existing memory with a newer version') and immediately distinguishes the intent from adding, via 'replaced rather than duplicated.' An agent can tell it apart from memory_add and memory_forget without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('when a saved fact becomes outdated') and implies the alternative (duplicating via memory_add). It does not name sibling tools outright nor state when NOT to use it, but the triggering condition is clear.

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