update_memory

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'update' but does not clarify partial vs full replacement semantics for tags or importance, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or return value. The schema clarifies 'tags' replaces, but the description omits this detail.

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 a single sentence with key information front-loaded. It is concise but could include a brief note on usage or behavior without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return value, confirm the key must exist, or differentiate from sibling tools. The 4-parameter complexity demands more context for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description lists 'content, tags, or importance' as updatable fields, providing a quick overview but no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'update', the resource 'memory', and the mutable attributes 'content, tags, or importance'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'store_memory' (create) and 'forget_memory' (delete) by explicitly stating it operates on an existing memory.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., memory must exist), nor does it contrast with 'store_memory' (for new memories) or 'forget_memory' (for deletion). The agent is left to infer usage context.

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