update_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral detail: content and tags replace existing values, and passing None keeps current values. It does not disclose error handling or side effects, but the core update semantics are well-covered.

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 concise sentences plus a clean Args block. It front-loads the purpose and then efficiently explains each parameter without unnecessary text.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit error behavior (e.g., what happens if memory_id doesn't exist), but this is a minor gap for a basic update 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role and the None-preserving behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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 'Update an existing memory's content or tags', specifying the verb (update), resource (memory), and what fields can be changed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_memory (delete), store_memory (create), and get_memory (retrieve).

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 implies usage on existing memories ('existing memory') and clarifies that content and tags are optional, making it clear when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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