superpos_update_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool writes to memory and specifies the three modes (append, prepend, replace), but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or data persistence guarantees. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 concise, with only one sentence and a short list of modes. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for action and parameters) to improve readability.

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 simplicity, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. However, it omits potential constraints like content length limits or whether multiple writes accumulate. Overall, it is complete enough for basic use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'mode' parameter's possible values and default, but does not add semantics beyond 'content' as the content to write. For a two-parameter tool, the description partially compensates but leaves content's format or constraints unspecified.

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 writes to the agent's persistent MEMORY document, using a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('this agent's persistent MEMORY document'). The name and description effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like superpos_update_knowledge, which target a different data store.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like superpos_update_knowledge. It only explains the mode parameter without any context for when to choose append, prepend, or replace, or when to use this tool over other memory-related tools (which are absent).

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