update_memory

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds that the old memory is soft-deleted (consistent with non-destructive) and a new memory is created with distilled content. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations, though the term 'distilled' is somewhat vague.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to meaning.

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?

The description covers the main process, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid id, empty content), prerequisites, or what 'distilled' means. Given low complexity and presence of output schema, it is adequate but has gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'the provided content' (mapping to 'content' parameter) and 'existing memory' (mapping to 'id'), but does not explicitly describe the parameters' semantics. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the parameters without schema descriptions.

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 re-distills and supersedes an existing memory, with explicit mention of soft-deleting the old memory and creating a new one. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'forget' (plain deletion) and get/retrieval tools.

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 usage for updating an existing memory with new content, but does not specify when to use versus alternatives (e.g., 'forget' vs 'update_memory') or any prerequisites. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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