Replace an existing memory with new content, marking the old version as superseded while preserving full history.
Replace a memory. Old value marked as superseded, new value set to active. Full history preserved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Stable key of the memory to replace | |
| value | Yes | New memory content (value 至少 10 字符，低信息过渡语会被拒收) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that the old value is marked superseded, the new value becomes active, and full history is preserved. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover failure behavior or access 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, front-loads the core operation, and uses the second sentence to convey the important state transition and history guarantee. Every word earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, the state transition, and the preservation guarantee. It is reasonably complete, though it does not state what happens when the key does not exist.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; the replacement semantics are behavioral rather than parameter-level.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Replace a memory') and explains the replace semantics (old value superseded, new value active). It is clear and distinct from siblings like memory_add or memory_remove, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.
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 implies this tool is for updating an existing memory, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus memory_add, memory_remove, or memory_consolidate. There are no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.