knowledge_supersede

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that old_slug is archived with a tombstone pointing to new_slug, and that a supersession relationship is recorded. It does not contradict annotations. Could mention reversibility or permission requirements, but overall good.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by workflow and precondition. Every sentence adds value with no superfluous words.

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 no output schema, the description explains the effects: archiving, tombstone creation, and recording relationship. It also covers prerequisites and workflow. For a merge primitive with side effects, this is 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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying roles: old_slug is the 'loser' and new_slug is 'canonical'. It also explains that note is optional and reinforces the purpose of each parameter.

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The description clearly states the tool marks a page as superseded, archives the old page, and records the relationship. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like knowledge_merge and knowledge_write.

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 explicitly provides the workflow: first write the canonical page with knowledge_write, then call knowledge_supersede. It also specifies the precondition that both pages must exist. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for different scenarios.

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