memory_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation ('Update') and implies the fact must already exist, but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, how missing ids are handled, or any side effects or return behavior. This is minimal disclosure.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Update') and resource ('existing fact'). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. It lacks instructions on how to construct the update, what happens if the id does not exist, and how this tool relates to the many sibling tools. Although an output schema exists, it does not compensate for missing behavioral and selective guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions value, confidence, category, and 'content payload', which roughly maps to the value, confidence, category, and content parameters. However, it omits required id and content_type, does not explain parameter formats or relationships, and adds little beyond what the property names already imply.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'an existing fact', and enumerates the aspects that can be updated (value, confidence, category, content payload). It differentiates from memory_add by emphasizing 'existing', but does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 alternatives like memory_correct, memory_add, or memory_remove. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is the right choice. It provides no exclusions or scenario-based guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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