memory_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful behaviors: previous version archived under .archive/, change recorded in audit log, and refusal of MEMORY.md. However, it does not disclose the role of the 'agent' parameter, whether the file must already exist, or what happens on failure. It also doesn't state whether content is fully replaced vs merged, though 'full file content' in the schema hints at this.

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 concise: two sentences (one in English, one in Chinese) with no fluff. The core action ('Replace the content') is front-loaded, followed by side effects (archive/audit) and the critical constraint (refuses MEMORY.md). Bilingual repetition is acceptable given the schema is also bilingual, and every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main action and key side effects but misses some context: what happens if the file doesn't exist, the role of the 'agent' parameter, and explicit guidance on when to use memory_update vs memory_write. It also doesn't describe the return value or confirmation behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75%, with path, content, and summary having descriptions, but the 'agent' parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description does not explain 'agent' at all, which is a gap. However, the description does add context by mentioning the audit log and archive, which indirectly connects summary/agent to those behaviors. The phrase 'full file content' clarifies replacement semantics, but overall the description leaves a key parameter unexplained.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Replace the content of an existing .md file') and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding MEMORY.md and noting archival/audit behavior. This makes it clear how it differs from memory_write (likely creates new files) and memory_delete.

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 clearly states this is for replacing content of an existing file and explicitly mentions it refuses MEMORY.md, giving a clear when-not condition. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like memory_write for creating new files, nor does it state conditions for when to choose memory_update over memory_write. The refusal condition is explicit, but other guidance is implied rather than stated.

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