update_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that the tool mutates the original record, re-embeds changed text so search reflects the correction, and only modifies explicitly passed fields. This provides substantial behavioral context, though it does not mention reversibility or failure modes.

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 compact, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action, and the second sentence provides targeted context without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the description covering when to use it, what it does, and its side effects, the description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. The schema fully documents parameters, and the description handles behavioral context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying partial-update behavior: 'Only the fields you pass are changed.' This directly helps an agent understand that omitted nullable parameters preserve existing values rather than clearing them.

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 immediately identifies the specific operation: 'Correct an existing memory in place.' It clearly distinguishes itself from store_memory by stating it 'edits the original record rather than adding a related one,' making the tool's role unambiguous among the memory-related siblings.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when a stored memory is wrong — a misremembered decision, a misspelled name, a fact that has since changed.' It also explains what this tool is not for by contrasting with 'adding a related one,' effectively steering an agent toward store_memory for new information.

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