rememb_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation is 'non-destructive' (the entry is updated, not deleted and recreated), it modifies only provided fields, and it works on existing entries by ID. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), permissions, or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second explains partial updates, the third clarifies non-destructiveness, and the fourth provides sibling alternatives. No wasted words, and structure supports quick understanding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, behavior, and guidelines. However, as a mutation tool, it lacks details on error cases, response format, or side effects (e.g., whether updates are logged). It's mostly complete but could be enhanced with more operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (entry_id, content, section, tags) with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that omitted fields are unchanged and that section can be moved, but this mostly reinforces the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'existing memory entry' with specific scope 'in-place by its ID', distinguishing it from siblings like rememb_write (create new) and rememb_delete (remove). It explicitly mentions what fields can be modified (content, section, or tags), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use rememb_write to create new entries, rememb_delete to permanently remove one.' It also clarifies that omitted fields remain unchanged, helping the agent understand the partial update behavior. This gives clear context for tool selection among siblings.

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