memory_update

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

The description confirms mutation (update) and ownership requirement, which aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true). However, it does not elaborate on side effects beyond parameter changes, and the annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 purpose and then lists parameters in a clear, structured format. It is appropriately sized for the number of parameters, though minor redundancy exists.

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 existing output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics and ownership constraint. It is complete for an update operation, though it does not mention default behavior for omitted fields beyond 'unchanged'.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter's meaning and behavior (e.g., 'Omit to leave unchanged'). This adds significant value beyond the schema, though it could be more concise.

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), the resource (memory entry), and the ownership condition ('you own'), distinguishing it from siblings like memory_write (create) and memory_delete (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 implies use on owned entries but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No guidance on when not to use or which sibling to prefer.

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