update_agent_memory

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden but only states the high-level intent. It does not disclose whether updates merge or overwrite existing memory, the session lifetime, or any side effects. It mentions 'active session' but fails to specify persistence or scoping nuances.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it efficient. However, given the tool's complexity (7 optional parameters), it might be too sparse to be considered fully 'appropriately sized', though it maintains crisp structure.

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level summary. It omits guidance on parameter combinations, whether fields are mutually exclusive, and session memory behavior, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke it 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?

All 7 parameters have individual schema descriptions, so the schema already provides comprehensive coverage. The description loosely alludes to categories (notes, targets, patch logs) but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already explains, resulting in a baseline score.

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 tool's action ('Update'), the resource ('active session memory state'), and the content types (notes, identified targets, patch logs). This distinguishes it from memory-read siblings like get_agent_context and query_memory_graph, which focus on retrieval.

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 usage is implied by the tool's name and the presence of read-oriented siblings, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, so it stops at 'implied usage' rather than giving clear context.

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