supersede

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect: the old memory's superseded_by field is set and it 'will be filtered out of search results (unless explicitly requested).' This tells the agent that the old memory is retained but hidden, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, includes a brief parenthetical about search filtering, and ends with a clarifying example. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, behavior in search results, and when to use it. It could add edge-case details like validation of IDs or reversibility, but these are not essential for the tool's core operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces which ID is old versus new through its wording and example, but it does not add substantial per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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The description clearly states the specific action: 'Mark an old memory as superseded by a newer one,' naming the exact resource (memory) and the mechanism (setting superseded_by). It also provides a concrete example ('database is MySQL' → 'database is PostgreSQL') and distinguishes this from sibling tools like forget or update by emphasizing the old/new relationship.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when a fact has changed,' with an illustrative example. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5, but the context is clear and actionable.

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