memory_update

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

No annotations at all, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It never says whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (partial vs. full replace), what happens if the id does not exist, whether the overwrite is recoverable, or whether confidence/tags are merged. Only the fact that it mutates an existing record is conveyed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the routing preference; every word earns its place. It is terse rather than padded, with the brevity problem showing up in completeness rather than here.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unknown: update semantics, enum meanings, failure modes, and return shape. The two sentences are not enough to invoke it 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 coverage is 0% and the description adds virtually nothing: it never explains that `id` must reference an existing memory, nor what `content`, `source`, `tags`, or the two enum fields (category, confidence) mean or do. An agent must infer all six parameters from bare names and enum lists.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Update an existing memory") and adds a concrete motivating case ("a fact changed"). It implicitly separates itself from memory_save via the no-duplicates guidance, though it never names the sibling.

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?

"Prefer updating over creating duplicates" gives one routing rule against memory_save, and "e.g. a fact changed" implies when to reach for it. But there is no guidance on how to obtain the required id (memory_search / memory_get), no when-not conditions, and no mention of the other siblings.

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