update_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses optimistic concurrency and conflict recovery, but it omits other important mutation behavior such as partial-update semantics, permissions, and what happens to unspecified fields.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words and the verb is front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though it is arguably too sparse for a nine-parameter mutation tool.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description covers only version-conflict behavior and leaves most of the tool's semantics for the agent to infer.

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% across nine parameters, so the description must compensate heavily. It only indirectly explains expected_version via 'last-read version' and says nothing about memory_id, body, tags, title, summary, metadata, change_reason, or last_verified_at.

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 says 'Update' and adds version/conflict guidance, but it never names the resource being updated or what fields are involved. It relies on the tool name to convey that this updates a memory and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as create_memory or archive_memory.

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 gives an explicit operational guideline: use the last-read version and reread/reconcile after conflicts. However, it does not say when to choose update_memory over alternatives such as create_memory, move_memory, or restore_memory_revision.

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