KIROK_update_memory

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond a simple update: it re-extracts entities/keywords and regenerates the embedding if content changes. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately addresses the tool's side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences of purpose and behavior followed by a bullet-point argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and argument semantics. It could mention error handling or return value expectations, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's role and default behavior (e.g., 'leave empty to keep current'). It adds meaning beyond the schema titles, though it omits details like expected formats or constraints.

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 verb ('update'), the resource ('existing memory'), and the primary action ('content'). It also specifies the side effects (re-extraction, regeneration) that differentiate it from read or delete tools among 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?

The description implies usage for modifying a memory's content but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like KIROK_retain or KIROK_smart_retain. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the name and context make the purpose clear.

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