Update a memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully discloses two important side effects: changing scope moves the memory between trees, and a content change refreshes the embedding and snapshots the old version into memory_history. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention concurrency control (expectedVersion) or potential conflict behavior, which could be relevant for agents.

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 zero fluff. It front-loads the primary action and allowed fields, then adds the two critical behavioral caveats. Every clause earns its place, and the language is precise and scannable.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters, a rich schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what fields can be updated and the key side effects. It does not explain return values, error scenarios (e.g., 409 conflict with expectedVersion), or permission requirements, but these are either implied by the schema or not critical for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema means the agent cannot expect structured response details, which is fine. Overall, the description is sufficient for calling the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the effect of specific parameters: scope changes cause tree movement, and content changes trigger embedding refresh and history snapshots. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which only state defaults and basic meaning. Other parameters like trust, retention, and reason are not elaborated, but the schema descriptions are adequate.

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 operation (Patch), the target (an existing memory by id), and the supported fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_store (create) and memory_forget (delete) by explicitly limiting to existing memories and listing updateable attributes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. its siblings. While 'Patch an existing memory' implies it is for updates rather than creation, it does not mention alternatives like memory_store for new memories or memory_get for retrieval, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., that the memory must already exist). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the operation nature.

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