update_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation without consequences. It does not say whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens if memory_id does not exist, how status transitions like 'superseded' affect other memories, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple update tool, though slightly under-specified in a way that hurts behavioral transparency rather than conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is not enough to fully understand the tool's behavior. It relies on the schema for parameter semantics but leaves unanswered the behavioral and usage questions, such as how to obtain a memory_id, what a successful update returns, and what side effects status changes may have.

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 memory_id, content, status, and importance, including the status enum and importance range. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'content or status' and actually omits 'importance', so it neither enhances nor contradicts 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 uses a clear verb–resource pair ('Update an existing memory') and names the most common mutable fields, which separates it from create-oriented siblings like 'remember' and read-oriented siblings like 'search_memory'. However, it omits the 'importance' property exposed by the schema, so the stated scope is slightly incomplete.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as 'remember' for creating memories or 'search_memory' for finding a memory_id. The description does not state prerequisites or warn against using it for new memories, leaving the decision entirely to inference.

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