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 states 'Update an existing memory by ID', implying a mutation operation, but lacks critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), if changes are reversible, or any rate limits/error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (e.g., side effects), parameter explanations beyond 'id', and output expectations, failing to compensate for the sparse structured data.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description only mentions 'by ID', referencing the required 'id' parameter, but ignores the other four parameters (title, content, tags, confidence). It fails to explain what these parameters do, their formats (e.g., tags as an array), or constraints (e.g., confidence range), leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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 resource ('an existing memory by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_memory' (create) and 'delete_memory' (remove), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'supersede_memory' or 'promote_memory'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing memory ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'supersede_memory' or 'promote_memory', leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal selection.

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