Update Memory

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

Annotations only signal a non-read operation; the description adds meaningful behavior: partial in-place mutation, mutability of memories, and wait_for_index behavior. It does not discuss side effects or old-value handling, but it goes beyond annotations.

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?

Purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded before the parameter list. Every sentence carries useful information, and the Args block is compact, readable, and free of filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the main flow well but omits scope and vector, and does not specify behavior when both or neither key and custom_key are provided. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema has no documentation, so the description compensates by explaining updates with concrete examples, defining key and custom_key as record identifiers, and clarifying wait_for_index defaults. However, the scope and vector parameters are not explained at all.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Revise an existing memory in place' and immediately clarifies memory is mutable. It also distinguishes itself from storing a duplicate, which separates it from montycat_remember and montycat_forget without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when a stored fact changes, such as a corrected value or updated preference, rather than storing a duplicate. It also clarifies that only passed fields are changed, preventing accidental overwrites.

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