ctx_update

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Only provided fields are changed' hints at a partial update (patch semantics), but it does not state whether the update is atomic, what happens to unspecified fields, or whether validation occurs. No description of return values, even though an output schema exists.

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 short sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and readable. However, it is too terse to cover all necessary dimensions given the tool's complexity and missing annotations.

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 5 parameters (including optional ones with defaults), 14 sibling tools, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship to other tools, how partial updates work with nullable fields, or what the output schema provides. The description would benefit from covering prerequisites and behavioral nuance.

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. The only parameter-related info is 'Only provided fields are changed', which describes update behavior but adds no meaning to individual fields like memory_id, tags, content, confidence, or importance. Their default values and nullability are left unexplained.

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 states 'Update an existing memory', which indicates a mutation verb and a vague resource ('memory'). However, the resource is not specific enough among siblings like ctx_delete (deletion) or ctx_save (creation/overwrite). It leaves ambiguity about what 'memory' means in the context of a memory system with many other tools.

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?

It provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ctx_save (which might create or overwrite) or ctx_delete. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the memory must already exist) or scenarios where this is preferable.

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