revise

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

Beyond the annotations (write, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that the tool preserves superseded observations for later audit ('dated and linked') and imposes an ordering constraint for relations. This adds significant behavioral context not present in the annotations. No contradiction detected.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a rationale and a conditional guideline. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and parameter prerequisites. It explains the non-destructive nature, the archival intent, and the ordering constraint, making it complete enough for safe and correct usage.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of superseding_entity and the need to record that entity first, enhancing the schema's plain description. However, it doesn't enrich superseded_by or the other parameters beyond their schema text, hence a 4.

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 tool's function: marking observations as no longer held and linking what replaced them. It explicitly distinguishes itself from deletion ('Deliberately not a delete') and explains the archival rationale, making it distinct from sibling tools like invalidate_observations.

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 guidance on when to use it by contrasting with deletion ('Deliberately not a delete') and explains why preserving is important. It also gives a conditional prerequisite for superseding_entity, telling the agent to record that entity first. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for simpler invalidation, so it stops short of a 5.

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