vectr_supersede

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the observable effects: the note stops appearing in default recall/session-start, renders a '[superseded ...]' badge, is not marked wrong, never shows the revoked deterrent, and is reversible. This gives the agent a clear model of what the operation does and does not do.

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 dense but economical: it fronts the core scenario, then explains behavioral consequences, contrasts with vectr_revoke, and closes with parameter guidance and reversibility. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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, non-destructive state-transition tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: the triggering condition, the exact note to mutate, the optional link to the replacement, the post-condition behavior, and the alternative tool in case of actual falsity.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful usage semantics—particularly that superseded_by links the replacement that should have carried supersedes=<old id> and that omitting it means retiring with no successor—which clarifies intent beyond the schema.

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States a specific action—retire an already-stored note as superseded after a missed supersedes parameter—and clearly distinguishes it from vectr_revoke, whose purpose is for actually false notes. The description also ties to the tool's title phrase 'post-hoc' and names the note-identification convention from vectr_recall.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool (after writing a replacement without supersedes), when not to use it (use vectr_revoke when the note is actually false), and how to handle the superseded_by parameter, including omitting it when there is no successor. It also notes reversibility with vectr_reinstate.

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