update_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that tags 'replaces existing tags' (implied from schema), it lacks critical details such as required permissions, whether updates are reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or mutation side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by adding value—no redundancy or waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (mutation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks behavioral details like error responses or side effects. It is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in transparency.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly (e.g., ID as required, title max length, confidence range). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing updatable fields but does not provide additional syntax, format, or contextual details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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' and the resource 'existing memory', specifying the exact fields that can be modified (title, content, tags, confidence). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_memory' (create new), 'delete_memory' (remove), and 'deprecate_memory' (mark obsolete), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 states when to use this tool: 'when a rule changes, a fix gets refined, or new context applies to an existing memory.' This provides clear context for usage, helping the agent decide between this and alternatives like 'add_memory' for new entries or 'deprecate_memory' for obsolete ones.

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