update_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: partial field updates (omitted fields left unchanged), automatic updated_at timestamp, full-text search index rebuild on content change, and the exact return format for success and failure. This is comprehensive.

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 four sentences long, well-structured: first sentence states main purpose, second clarifies partial update behavior, third lists side effects, fourth gives use cases. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (partial updates, side effects like FTS rebuild, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: what fields can be updated, what happens to omitted fields, automatic timestamp, index rebuild, and the exact return format for both success and failure cases.

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%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description adds minimal additional context, such as 'id' being obtainable from other tools. The partial update behavior is implied by the schema's 'Omit to keep' statements, so the description just reinforces. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: updating an existing memory in a local SQLite database. It specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'memory', and distinguishes from sibling tools like store_memory and delete_memory by mentioning it avoids deleting and re-creating.

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 explicitly provides use cases: 'correct inaccurate memories, adjust importance, or reclassify a memory's category'. It implies not to use for creation (use store_memory) or deletion (use delete_memory), though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives.

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