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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond them by stating the old text is overwritten and by pointing to list_memories as the id source. It stops short of saying whether the overwrite is reversible or how errors surface, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single tight sentence-cluster: the operation and its constraint come first, then the when-to-use, then the id source, then the excluded sibling. No filler and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, the size limit, the id prerequisite, and the nearest alternative. Only minor operational details (reversibility, failure behavior) are absent, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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%, so both parameters (content, memory_id) are already documented with type, max length, and UUID origin. The description restates those same facts rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace the text of an existing memory by id') plus a concrete constraint (max 500 characters) and the overwrite effect. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling create_memory, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks to correct or change something ISMS Copilot remembers'), a prerequisite step ('get the id from list_memories'), and a stated exclusion ('Do not use it to add a new memory (create_memory)'). Nothing is left to inference.

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