Replace a stale memory with a corrected one. The old row is marked superseded and excluded from future reads; the new row becomes the current version. Use for corrections; use memory_forget for pure deletions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| old_id | Yes | UUID of the memory to replace. | |
| session_id | No | ||
| written_by | No | ||
| new_content | Yes | New content that supersedes the old memory. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description explains the core behavior: old row is marked superseded and excluded from future reads, new row becomes current. It lacks details on permissions or reversibility, but for a simple operation this is sufficient.
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?
Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, behavior, and usage guidance without any unnecessary 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 the absence of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavior. It could be improved by documenting optional parameters, but essentials are handled.
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 description clarifies the two required parameters ('old_id' as UUID to replace, 'new_content' as new content). However, schema coverage is only 40% (optional params like tags, session_id, written_by lack schema descriptions and are not mentioned in the description).
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 action ('Replace a stale memory with a corrected one') and specifies the resource (memory). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool memory_forget, which is used for pure deletions.
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 says 'Use for corrections; use memory_forget for pure deletions,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: write (single/bulk), search, list, forget, supersede. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'memory_' prefix and verb pattern, using snake_case throughout. Naming is predictable and clear.
6 tools is well-scoped for a memory management server, covering essential operations without being excessive or insufficient.
Covers write (single/bulk), search, list, soft-delete, and supersede. Minor gap: no direct single-item retrieval by ID, but search can serve that purpose.
