update_memory

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and not destructive. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing rejection conditions, ownership verification, sanitizer behavior (length cap, truncation flag, annotation stripping), and refusal of empty content. This provides significant behavioral transparency, though the success response is not fully described.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second efficiently packs important behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers rejection logic, ownership, and sanitization. It partially describes the response (truncation flag). However, it omits success response fields and does not mention what happens on success, leaving a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds extra context: 'Rejects if memory is locked' relates to the operation on memory_id, 'Ownership enforced when agent_id provided' clarifies agent_id's role, and sanitizer details explain constraints on content. This adds meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Update memory content by ID,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like store, delete_memory, and lock_memory by focusing on an existing memory identified by ID.

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 description provides context about when the tool will reject (memory locked) and ownership enforcement, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like store (for new memories) or delete_memory. No exclusionary language or alternative tool references are given.

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