edit_memory

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that old content is preserved in edit history, but fails to mention required permissions, reversibility, or any side effects of the update, providing only partial behavioral clarity.

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 the first sentence delivering the core purpose concisely. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could briefly mention key parameters without losing conciseness.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks parameter descriptions and return value explanation, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (uid, new_content, note), forcing agents to rely solely on parameter names without any additional context or examples.

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 'Correct/update a memory's content' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'forget' (delete) and 'set_confidence' (modify confidence) by emphasizing preserving edit history.

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 use for corrections while preserving history, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forget' or 'purge_memory', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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