update

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

The phrase 'in-place without losing metadata' adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations, the description still does not disclose side effects, permissions, or how the operation handles optional fields like 'effective_from' or 'modified_by'.

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. Every phrase—'existing memory,' 'in-place,' 'without losing metadata'—adds relevant information.

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 schema fully documents parameters, but the description itself lacks usage guidance relative to the update-family siblings and provides only minimal behavioral context. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps for an agent deciding between this tool and alternatives.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable per the baseline when the schema handles it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Update an existing memory in-place without losing metadata,' clearly indicating what the tool does. It gestures at a distinguishing behavior but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_update' or 'do_update'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as 'check_update' or 'do_update'. The only usage signal is the implicit 'use it to update memories,' with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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