memory_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. While it indicates a mutation ('update'), it does not explain whether updates are partial (PATCH-style) or full replacements, what happens if the id does not exist, or whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared. These are consequential unknowns for an agent making memory edits.

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 only two sentences long and each one contributes: the first states the operation and target, the second gives the usage preference. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action. No redundant or filler content.

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 eight parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is materially incomplete. It omits return values, error behavior for missing ids, update semantics (merge vs replace), and any field-specific nuances. An agent could unintentionally overwrite existing memory content because the tool's behavior on omitted fields is unspecified.

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 only 13%, with just 'id' documented; the other seven parameters (tags, agent, title, status, content, category, importance) have no descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter detail whatsoever, so the agent must infer semantics from names and enums alone. This is especially risky for fields like status and category where replacement semantics matter.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing, 'Update an existing memory by id,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like memory_add and memory_delete. It identifies the resource (memory) and the operation (update) unambiguously.

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 second sentence, 'Prefer updating over creating duplicates when knowledge changes or gets corrected,' provides an explicit routing rule. It tells the agent when to choose this tool over memory_add, giving both a condition and an alternative. This is strong guidance above the bare minimum.

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