memory_supersede

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: in review mode the replacement is queued for approval. With no annotations, this is valuable. However, it does not explain what happens outside review mode, whether the old memory is deleted or archived, or any 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 two short sentences with no filler. The key behavioral note about review mode is included without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters at zero schema coverage. The description is too sparse to guide correct invocation, especially regarding what the parameters mean and what happens outside review mode.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It hints that old_memory_id refers to an old memory and text is the replacement content, but it leaves kind, tag, subject, and target_path semantically undefined. Required parameters are not explained beyond the overall operation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'supersede an old memory'. This clearly indicates a replacement operation, which is semantically distinct from siblings like memory_forget or memory_propose. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tools, so it lacks some differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the other memory tools. It mentions review-mode behavior but does not state when superseding is appropriate versus proposing or forgetting. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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