Memory Update

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

With no annotations, the description informs about re-embedding (write operation), conflict preview for org-scoped memories, and need for confirmation. It does not detail error handling or response format, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the main purpose and key nuance for org-scoped memories.

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 6 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the update flow, re-embedding, conflict preview, and confirmation. It lacks details on success response or error cases, but is sufficient for a straightforward update tool.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining the deprecated confirm parameter, resolution enum, and change_reason purpose (audit log). However, not all parameters receive additional context (e.g., project is just restated).

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?

Clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'existing memory', and distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_store (store new) or memory_forget (delete) by specifying 'update in place' and 're-embeds the new content'.

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?

Provides context for org-scoped memories and the need for confirmation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_store for new memories). No explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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