update_memory

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

Annotations provide no destructive or idempotent hints. The description adds that only provided fields change, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or conflict handling. Little beyond basic mutation behavior.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the key purpose. Follow-up on new_name and workspace is clear. Could be more structured but efficient.

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 7 parameters and output schema existing, the description covers core behavior but ignores optional fields (tags, content, metadata). Adequate for basic use, but gaps remain for complex inputs.

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 low (14%), with only memory_type described. The description adds meaning for new_name and workspace, but content, tags, and metadata remain undocumented. Partial compensation.

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 it updates an existing memory by name, with partial updates ('Only provided fields are changed'). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_memory, get_memory, and store_memory.

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 implies use for partial updates ('Only provided fields are changed') but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like store_memory for creation or delete_memory for removal. No exclusions or context are provided.

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