memory_amend

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

The description discloses that the old memory is kept but decayed in recall results, which is a behavioral detail beyond the basic schema. It does not mention error cases or effects on nodes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 one concise sentence that packs the purpose and key behavior without 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?

For a simple tool, the description covers the primary purpose and effect, and the parameter names plus context allow an agent to infer usage. Missing explicit parameter meanings are a minor gap.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, but the description implies node_id identifies the existing memory. The fields 'reason' and 'content' are self-explanatory in context, but the tool description does not explicitly explain each parameter's role.

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 records a correction and creates a new memory that supersedes an existing one, distinguishing it from the sibling memory_store tool which likely creates new memories without superseding.

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?

It implies usage for correcting existing memories by saying 'supersedes an existing one', but does not explicitly contrast with memory_store or other siblings. However, the intent is fairly clear.

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