memvid_update

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

The description doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations clearly indicate this is a destructive, non-readonly, non-idempotent operation, which covers the safety profile. The description could have added context about what 'destructive' means in practice (e.g., overwrites existing content permanently) or mentioned any side effects, but it doesn't contradict the annotations.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The annotations provide crucial safety information (destructiveHint: true), but the description doesn't explain what happens after the update, whether there's confirmation, or what errors might occur. Given the complexity of frame updates in memory files, more context about the operation's impact would be helpful.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters (file path, frame ID, new content). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as file format details, content constraints, or frame ID ranges beyond the schema's 'minimum: 0'.

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 action ('Update') and target resource ('content of a specific frame'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like memvid_correct or memvid_put, which might also modify frame content, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific update method.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., memvid_correct, memvid_put, memvid_put_many), there's no indication of whether this is the primary update method, when other tools might be more appropriate, or what prerequisites exist for using it.

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