agentmem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the old memory is 'marked superseded and linked to the replacement,' which hints at mutation and relationship changes, but fails to address critical aspects like permissions, reversibility, error handling, or what 'marked superseded' entails operationally.

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 that directly state the tool's function and outcome with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary details.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error cases), output format, or how the linking manifests, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the full context of 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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (old_id and new_id) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these IDs refer to memories, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Replace an old memory with a new one') and the resource ('memory'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_memory, update_memory, or deprecate_memory by focusing on superseding and linking rather than removal or modification.

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 update_memory or deprecate_memory, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing existing memory IDs. It implies usage for replacement but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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