Update Long-Term Memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It states the tool updates memory, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or how partial updates (e.g., only text) affect existing data. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and directly lists the updatable components, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% parameter coverage, the description's gaps in behavioral transparency and usage guidelines are partially mitigated. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more context on safety and prerequisites to be fully complete.

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 fully documents parameters (id, newText, newAssociations). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are the updatable fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Update') and target ('a memory node's text and/or associations'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'addLongTermMemory' or 'deleteLongTermMemory'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'saveMemory' or specify what constitutes a 'memory node' beyond the ID parameter.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing memory node), contrast with 'addLongTermMemory' for new nodes, or explain when to update text versus associations. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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