memory_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains parameter behavior ('Omit to leave unchanged') but does not disclose failure modes, success criteria, or return format. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description omits any context beyond parameters.

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 main action and then lists parameters concisely. Each line is necessary, but the list could be slightly more compact. Nonetheless, it is clear and to the point.

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 the absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., ownership proof), atomicity, error handling, or constraints like content length. It is sufficient but not thorough.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats schema descriptions nearly verbatim, adding little new meaning. However, the structured list and the 'Omit to leave unchanged' pattern provide minor added value over the raw schema.

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 action 'Update a memory entry you own.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('memory entry'), with the constraint 'you own,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_write (create) and memory_delete.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_delta or memory_get. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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